[identity profile] kinvore.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
I never thought I'd see anyone put their name behind a bill like this anytime soon:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110623/ap_on_go_co/us_pot_bill

It's a proposal to decriminalize marijuana. While technically bipartisan (Ron Paul is a co-sponsor) there is virtually no chance of it passing a Republican-controlled House. It's not all the GOP's fault, though. Few Democrats will go on the record as being opposed to marijuana prohibition, including our President.

We shouldn't be sending people to jail for smoking a damned plant. Anyone who claims to want less government in our lives is a hypocrite if they oppose this bill.

I know, I know. Hypocrisy in politics, color us surprised.

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 00:37 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mrbogey.livejournal.com
My argument is that marijuana is harmless to society at large and any individual damage it does is selective and minor stemming mainly from its illegality. I've never heard of someone dying from smoking marijuana by itself, having lasting effects, or doing something completely out of character worse than a drink would have.

That reminds me...

Date: 24/6/11 00:41 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
Your observations bring to mind a story told by a cop who was at a party with his rookie partner when people started to spark up. The rookie said that they should shut the party down, but the veteran pointed out that the smoke would make things more mellow. It is better that they not get drunk and rowdy.

Re: That reminds me...

From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 01:23 (UTC) - Expand

Re: That reminds me...

From: [identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 15:56 (UTC) - Expand

Re: That reminds me...

From: [identity profile] terminator44.livejournal.com - Date: 26/6/11 01:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 01:52 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com
While this is true, it's also good to point out the huge societal costs imposed by marijuana prohibition. Imprisonment, court costs, wasted police time, drug raids, paramilitary SWAT teams, breaking up families, drug cartels in Mexico running rampant, and everything that goes along with it. I think both arguments are true, but this secondary one is a good backstop. Even if someone thinks pot is bad, I doubt many, when faced with the full cost of the drug war, will say it's worse.

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 02:36 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com
Alcohol is far deadlier than marijuana:

Image


The most toxic recreational drugs, such as GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) and heroin, have a lethal dose less than 10 times their typical effective dose. The largest cluster of substances has a lethal dose that is 10 to 20 times the effective dose: These include cocaine, MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, often called "ecstasy") and alcohol. A less toxic group of substances, requiring 20 to 80 times the effective dose to cause death, include Rohypnol (flunitrazepam or "roofies") and mescaline (peyote cactus). The least physiologically toxic substances, those requiring 100 to 1,000 times the effective dose to cause death, include psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana, when ingested. I've found no published cases in the English language that document deaths from smoked marijuana, so the actual lethal dose is a mystery. My surmise is that smoking marijuana is more risky than eating it but still safer than getting drunk.

Alcohol thus ranks at the dangerous end of the toxicity spectrum. So despite the fact that about 75 percent of all adults in the United States enjoy an occasional drink, it must be remembered that alcohol is quite toxic. Indeed, if alcohol were a newly formulated beverage, its high toxicity and addiction potential would surely prevent it from being marketed as a food or drug. This conclusion runs counter to the common view that one's own use of alcohol is harmless.



Source. (http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/03/drugs-and-toxicity/229893/)

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 22:23 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com - Date: 25/6/11 03:40 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 04:50 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fizzyland.livejournal.com
I enjoy these rare moments where we agree. Also, sadly our politicians, no matter the persuasion, think they know better than the public so in that, seem to be happy to continue failed policies and pointless criminalization of people who just want to relieve their stress.

Smoking is not illegal.

Date: 24/6/11 00:38 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
It is not the smoking part that is illegal but the possession aspect. Prohibition is aimed more at the trade than it is at the use.

I have said it before and I will say it again. One of the Christian experts on heresies, Irenaeus, attacked vegetarians for turning their noses up at the divine gift of animal food. When I read his rationale, I immediately thought of all of those blasphemous heretics who turn their noses up at the divine gift of cannabis.

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 00:57 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com
We shouldn't be sending people to jail for smoking a damned plant

I know Michigan has a medical a law allowing medical marijuana that conflicts with federal law. This has caused a lot of confusion and conflict within the state because of federal law.

It may have a chance if they use medically prescribed marijuana use as a stepping stone to generally approved legalization.

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 01:53 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com
They can't. Federal law preempts state medical marijuana laws, under Golsalez v. Raich. Unless you mean federal medical marijuana law.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 01:59 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 02:01 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 01:24 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pastorlenny.livejournal.com
Anyone who claims to want less government in our lives is a hypocrite if they oppose this bill.

I don't think this is a supportable assertion. One could think government should be smaller generally, but still support speed limits, proscription of intoxicants, and more rigorous regulation of speculation in commodities.

Edited Date: 24/6/11 01:26 (UTC)

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] pastorlenny.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 02:19 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 02:39 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] pastorlenny.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 03:17 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] pastorlenny.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 03:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] pastorlenny.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 03:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] notmrgarrison.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 02:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] notmrgarrison.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 02:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] notmrgarrison.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 03:01 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 17:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 04:10 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] pastorlenny.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 03:19 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] meus-ovatio.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 03:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] notmrgarrison.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 04:05 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] pastorlenny.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 13:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 02:08 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kylinrouge.livejournal.com
"Marijuana use and distribution is prohibited under federal law because it has a high potential for abuse and does not have an accepted medical use in the U.S.," Smith said. "The Food and Drug Administration has not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease."

Yeah, because smoking tobacco is good for all sorts of diseases!

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 02:27 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] notmrgarrison.livejournal.com
It makes you pay the piano really fast, then you kill people.

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 02:45 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] soliloquy76.livejournal.com
I love this part:
The bill would have to go through the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said his panel would not consider it.

"Marijuana use and distribution is prohibited under federal law because it has a high potential for abuse and does not have an accepted medical use in the U.S.," Smith said. "The Food and Drug Administration has not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease.

"Decriminalizing marijuana will only lead to millions more Americans becoming addicted to drugs and greater profits for drug cartels who fund violence along the U.S.-Mexico border. Allowing states to determine their own marijuana policy flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent."
The entire thing reeks of bullshit, but it's particularly telling that Republicans don't really care about smaller federal government and deferring to states.

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 02:53 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] notmrgarrison.livejournal.com

"Decriminalizing marijuana will only lead to millions more Americans becoming addicted to drugs and greater profits for drug cartels


Holy crap.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] kylinrouge.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 03:19 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] kylinrouge.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 03:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] notmrgarrison.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 03:58 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 22:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] napoleonofcrime.livejournal.com - Date: 25/6/11 23:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 04:11 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com
The bit about precedent is amusing as hell, too. States don't get to set their own policy because the federal government preempts the field. It has nothing to do with anything inherent about marijuana.

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 04:33 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com
not have an accepted medical use in the U.S.

Except for by most people and academics and states...

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] fizzyland.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 06:06 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 22:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 05:28 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jerseycajun.livejournal.com
It has such a high potential for abuse that all three of our most recent presidents have all copped to doing it at some point and yet still managed not to end up wandering the streets in a drug-addled rage.

Indeed, the whole thing reeks. It's rather shocking that the facade is still being so vigorously held up.

Let's run Rep Smith's criteria against alcohol.

High potential for abuse? Self-evident. Check.
No accepted medical use? Check.
Lack of FDA approval for medicinal purposes? Check.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] the-rukh.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 17:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 03:30 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] udoswald.livejournal.com
there is virtually no chance of it passing a Republican-controlled House.

Sadly I don't see this bill passing even in a Democratic-controlled House. The Dems talk a good game but when it comes to police-state bullshit they're not that much better than Republicans (and getting worse).

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] udoswald.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 03:33 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] notmrgarrison.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 04:01 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] raichu100.livejournal.com - Date: 24/6/11 23:33 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 06:09 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fizzyland.livejournal.com
Democrats, especially California's, are useless in this area. Despite the lack of a harm case against it and flying in the face of medical evidence showing that in fact, marijuana can be helpful for a number of conditions, the federal government and all of it's law-enforcement branches will keep pretending that it's a scourge that kills untold numbers(actually, non-existent numbers).

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 23:32 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] raichu100.livejournal.com
Thank you for this post! Legalize please! :)

(no subject)

Date: 24/6/11 23:34 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] raichu100.livejournal.com
Also, I don't smoke pot and never will. But really people...smh.

Hell yeah!

Date: 26/6/11 01:23 (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 27/6/11 01:34 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chyenna.livejournal.com
I’m all for smaller government, but I don’t support legalizing marijuana except in the case of medical purposes. And I’m not talking about glaucoma either.

My main beef is the drug cartels. They aren’t going to retire because they’re not making as much money as before or because they have a wider competition. So what are they going to do? They send hitmen (which are increasingly teenagers) to kill members of rival gangs as well as police and lawyers who make a stand against them and their operations, and not just in Mexico. And let's say they give up their weed operations, they'll focus more on the illegal drugs, which will still be in demand here, and the violence will still continue. It won't abate with a passing of a bill.

It’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation. I see the ‘let’s legalize it’ perspective, but I also know that legalizing won’t help that much. Problems like these can’t be solved by signing petitions and passing bills. These are difficult problems with a wide spread impact and severe consequences.

I'm not trying to be combative, but I see no reason to legalize marijuana outside of the medical arena. Yes, I believe in personal freedom (as well as taking responsibility for your personal freedom), but I know that said personal freedom comes with a price tag. How much personal freedom depends on the price. So what will this cost not just us but for our neighbors in Mexico and beyond? The world is getting smaller so our actions (and inactions) have a much more stronger impact that spans to areas in far off places.

(no subject)

Date: 27/6/11 03:05 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chyenna.livejournal.com
P.S. I do believe that most politicians don't want to pass the legalization of marijuana because they can't make a viable profit off of it like they do with alcohol and tobacco.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
910 1112 131415
1617 1819 202122
2324 2526272829
30      
OSZAR »