California's marijuana legalization measure, Proposition 19, got a deep-pocketed supporter this week when billionaire George Soros announced a $1 million gift to boost the pro-pot ballot initiative.
"Just as the process of repealing national alcohol prohibition began with individual states repealing their own prohibition laws, so individual states must now take the initiative with respect to repealing marijuana prohibition laws," Soros wrote in an op-ed piece Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal. The liberal financier and philanthropist was also a backer of the 1996 measure that legalized medical marijuana in the state.
In his op-ed, Soros argued that legalizing and taxing marijuana would save taxpayers the costs of incarceration and law enforcement while raising revenue.
In his op-ed, Soros argued that legalizing and taxing marijuana would save taxpayers the costs of incarceration and law enforcement while raising revenue.
I mean...the man has a point.
Because prohibitionist drug policies contradict his vision of "The Open Society," Soros concludes that they are wrong, and be has launched a vast public relations campaign that has made him the new darling of the media Left.That's from 1996.
Just because he's a crazed commie doesn't mean that the prohibition movement is wrong.
It seems to me that legalizing pot in order to tax it and derive an income has been tried in europe, and it failed. It did cause a tax income to dribble in, but expenses went up and wiped out the difference. Wish I could recall the specifics .... :facepalm: ??? =|
It amazes me how some people can promote personal freedom in one area but not in another.
True. Happens in reverse too. You see Conservatives lobbying for the 2nd Amendment and then turn around and call for greater drug war powers, etc.
Chris
So long as a person is an adult, I really don't care what drug-related vice they decide to indulge in, so long as -
a) They don't endanger anyone else;
b) They don't neglect their legitimate responsibilites (like providing for their own kids);
c) Unemployability because of drug use/abuse does NOT make them eligible for the public dole, nor do taxpayers pay for the drugs;
d) As a taxpayer, I don't have to pay to "rehabilitate" them or treat their drug-related health issues, including overdoses.
A person's body is their own, and as far as I'm concerned they can do with it what they please . . . but they have no right to impose the consequences of their poor choices on others.
You're not going to convince most people that drugs are fine. The "FREEDOM!!11!" cry isn't going to over-ride most people's "crackhead breaking in and killing my family" fears.
So long as a person is an adult, I really don't care what drug-related vice they decide to indulge in, so long as -
a) They don't endanger anyone else;
b) They don't neglect their legitimate responsibilites (like providing for their own kids);
c) Unemployability because of drug use/abuse does NOT make them eligible for the public dole, nor do taxpayers pay for the drugs;
True. Happens in reverse too. You see Conservatives lobbying for the 2nd Amendment and then turn around and call for greater drug war powers, etc.
Chris
Drug testing for any government benefits, and if a parent tests positive while trying to get benefits for a child, take the kid away.
it's kinda hard to rally the pitchfork & torch militia
when they are off staring at double rainbows
Just because he's a crazed commie doesn't mean that the prohibition movement is wrong.
I'm just wondering out loud what else might be behind this move to support legalization.
No person is a movie villain the kicks puppies for entertainment and is completely evil.
It amazes me how some people can promote personal freedom in one area but not in another.Interesting generalization. Care to specify what kind of "personal freedom" you would like that isn't provided for in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? Not saying that's the beginning and end all of everything.
There are two reasons, and only two reasons to legalize drugs (all drugs) IMHO, YMMV
1) Freedom. We should be free people to do with our bodies as we please. Crimes like robbery, rape and murder are already illegal. Blaming illicit substances for the crimes of a person is, well, wrong. See, said criminal was of free will and mind to take said drugs. They are and always should be responsible for whatever actions they take after using said drugs.
2) Prohibition of alchohol brought us crime. Real crime, organzied. Murder and bribery were the name of the game when it came to moving illegal alcohol. History, she does repeat herself in the war on drugs. The harder we try to stamp out drugs, the more profit there is to be made. The more profit there is to be made, the more risks the cartels will take to make that money. Bodies are piling up fast in Mexico. And it is our fault.
Taxation and regulation are just excuses levied by desperate politicians who need revenue streams to fund their failing social projects.
What happens when the drug head runs out of funds and starts stealing to support his habit?
Stealing is already illegal. What happens when the person, who doesn't do drugs, that doesn't have a job and is desperate for money starts stealing to make money? Should we make it a law where businesses have to hire people to keep this from happening?
Care to specify what kind of "personal freedom" you would like that isn't provided for in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?
I'm quit aware stealing is already illegal.
The point is that if legalized drugs increases the number of criminal acts, then what? Do we want to live with that?
Let's not try to go off with comparisons about unemployed people doing that. While we are a very different society know than we were eighty years ago, the Great Depression did not show a huge increase in the numbers of unemployed accountants running around stealing.
What would be the benefit of that? And how many foster kids are you willing to house?
The point is that if legalized drugs increases the number of criminal acts, then what?
If they can afford drugs, they can afford to provide for their own kids. If they refuse to do that, they're not fit parents.
That's also why I specified that easily/cheaply produced drugs could be exempted; as I pointed out, pot could be had for free in virtually unlimited quantities by anyone with a bit of garden space.
People steal to get alcohol. People steal to get tobacco. People steal to get food. Obviously, the solution is to ban all of those, so people will stop stealing.No, just make stealing illegal. Oh, wait... :facepalm:
I suspect a lot of adults would probably not start using drugs, but I do think it would become easier for kids to get drugs (and I know it's pretty easy now, but don't think it "can't get worse" -- it can) and I think that's what will become the sore point.
Ok Tommy, I'm gonna run with your argument...
So, I REALLY like Starbuck's mochas. But they're kinda pricey, and I'm not making that much at work. If I steal some cash o get my mochay goodness, then mochas should be banned?
How about the folks who kill over expensive shoes, or other small items? Should those items be banned, as they lead to criminal acts?
Not saying the legalization is going to make the world all rosy. But the prohibition is certainly not working, and is causing problems...
1.)Then what seems to be the problem?
Yes.
2.) "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin.
3.) "I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much liberty than those attending too small degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
4.) Making alcohol illegal seemed to increase the number of criminal acts and legalizing it again seemed to drop it. So what if a few criminals resort to crime to get more? How is illegalizing "drugs" in line with the ideas of personal freedom? Plus if the stigma is gone that "drugs are bad, mmmk" then it will be easier for those with a problem with drugs to seek help.
5.) Anywhere there is increased poverty there is an increase in crime. You don't see rich drug abusers going around breaking into peoples houses do you? If a drug abuser had money then they wouldn't have a need to steal.
I don't see how. I distinctly remember grousing around one Saturday afternoon with some buddies back when I was 19 or 20 that we couldn't find anybody to buy us beer. We all commented that we sure could find somebody to sell us pot though.
It's pretty hard to control distribution when everybody from the manufacturers right down to the local dealers all operate illegally.
Care to tell me how the War on Drugs is compatible with the 10th and 9th amendments?
Do mochas cause you to lose spatial coordination and drive your car off the road and kill pedestrians, or run head-on into other cars? Let's keep the argument within sane boundaries.
I know there are people who kill for shoes but we don't associate shoes with destructive behaviour that has deleterious effects on people surrounding the user.
2.) What "essential liberty" is there in stoning yourself silly with drugs??? That's one of the most assinine things I've heard claimed.
Part of the problem is that most pro-drug people are poor tacticians.
4.) It is true that prohibition gave the Mafia a lot of power through illegal distilleries and rumrunning, but it is also true that per capita use of alcohol by the general population was never lower than during prohibition.
2.) What "essential liberty" is there in stoning yourself silly with drugs??? That's one of the most assinine things I've heard claimed.
It seems to me that legalizing pot in order to tax it and derive an income has been tried in europe, and it failed. It did cause a tax income to dribble in, but expenses went up and wiped out the difference. Wish I could recall the specifics .... :facepalm: ??? =|It seems to me that isn't quite the case...
The government - and by proxy, the individuals supporting criminalization of drugs - has no legitimate authority to control anything that the individual does All this talk of Prohibition - if you recall, there was a federal constitutional amendment required to give the federal government the power to ban alcohol. When Prohibition ended, a second amendment was needed to remove that specific power. Those of you who are proponents of the status quo -- why did alcohol prohibition require an amendment, but drug prohibition does not?
What happens when the drug head runs out of funds and starts stealing to support his habit?Were talking about pot in this thread, really how many pot heads are breaking in to people house for pot money? I might agree with you a bit if we where talking about legalizing meth, but no not at the moment. Were talking about pot.
But I doubt the sociopathic thugs that operate the cartels and drug running gangs will all of a suddenly morph into saintly paragons of virtue when/if drugs are legalized.
More likely they will remain dangerous psychopathic thugs, except they will be dangerous psychopathic unemployed and >>>desparate<<< thugs
I suspect a lot of adults would probably not start using drugs, but I do think it would become easier for kids to get drugs (and I know it's pretty easy now, but don't think it "can't get worse" -- it can) and I think that's what will become the sore point. Teenagers often think they have all the answers but the truth is they often take bad decisions borne out of inexperience and youthful ignorance and pride, not to mention a desire to "revolt" against parental authority, which also manifests itself in dangerous and/or illegal behaviour at times.
Ah, didn't catch the economic bent there. Still, I fail to see the point in creating a statutory standard of parenting that is based on metabolytes in urine. There are already more kids in foster care than can be reasonably handled. How about if their kids show signs of neglect due to lack of resources despite evidence that the parents have or have been provided with resources? Seems a lot more reasonable to measure parenting based on, y'know, parenting.
And it has the merit of already being the system in place. Having cocaine metabolytes in one's urine does not mean that one has spend money on cocaine. It means one has cocaine metabolytes in one's urine. It meets most every standard of proof in a child protection action that I can think of for demonstrating that the individual has used cocaine, but again, absent direct evidence of harm to the children, it's just too expensive to implement.
And it turns the War of Drugs into the War on Poor People Who Use Drugs. What's the point?
Seems that TommyGun is quite the statist. Oh, he likes his guns and low taxes all right, but he's more than willing to use the government's gun to control YOU
Chris
Were talking about pot in this thread, really how many pot heads are breaking in to people house for pot money? I might agree with you a bit if we where talking about legalizing meth, but no not at the moment. Were talking about pot.
Who's going to go buy a $20 gram pot from the thug on the corner that might rob them when you can grow the stuff yourself for damn near free ??
Seems that TommyGun is quite the statist. Oh, he likes his guns and low taxes all right, but he's more than willing to use the government's gun to control YOU:facepalm:
Chris
TommyGunn:Where am I doing this? Certainly people can behave criminally without drugs. But don't tell me that every meth head and crackhead out there remains a paragon of virtue. Plenty of people have gotten themselves addicted to some nasty drug and become desparate enough to violate the law.
Do know that your arguments can be used against firearm use & ownership.
Be careful attributing to inanimate objects the blame for actions taken by living & breathing humans.
What "essential liberty" is there in drinking yourself silly with alcohol?
... You think it would be easier for kids to get drugs than it already is if it where legalized? What are you joking? Or just that ill informed? I still remember my old high school, if you couldn't score a bag of pot on Lake Ave. while you were at lunch you went BACK to school to meet up with one of the many dealers there. Funny thing was I smoked cigarettes at the time and had a MUCH bigger hassle trying to get cigarettes than I would have to get pot. Ask any high school age kid (that's not related to you, they'll probably lie) what's easier to get alcohol, tobacco, or weed. I bet $10 that they say weed. Weed dealers aren't worried about the State pulling their pot license something I think a legal licensed dispenser of Marijuana would have to worry about .
Tommygunn, True freedom is an ugly, ugly thing. There is no gaurantee of low crime.
Unless I commit an offense against another, how dare you prevent me from doing what ever I want to myself?
You realize that your reasoning against drugs is exactly the same reasoning they use to control your guns?
"You realize that your reasoning against drugs is exactly the same reasoning they use to control your guns."
Quote from: roo_sterDo know that your arguments can be used against firearm use & ownership.
Be careful attributing to inanimate objects the blame for actions taken by living & breathing humans.
Where am I doing this?
Certainly people can behave criminally without drugs. But don't tell me that every meth head and crackhead out there remains a paragon of virtue.I'd like you to point out where I wrote or implied this, font-boy.
Recall Rush Limbaugh and his oxycontin addiction? Here you have the #1 champion of law & order in this country and took oxy for a back problem, and wound up violating the law in order to maintain his addiction. True, he didn't become a violent criminal, but he nevertheless acted in a manner completly inconsistant with his normal persona.
Drugs have an effect on people.
My mother dealt with an alcohol addiction during the 1980s, so I've seen it first hand.
The law did nothing to protect her at all.
But I don't treat that as a reason to change the law. My mother dealt with her problem and overcame it.
So long as a person is an adult, I really don't care what drug-related vice they decide to indulge in, so long as -After all of the discussions of drug legalization we've done here on APS, this post sums the issue up far better than anything I think I've ever seen.
a) They don't endanger anyone else;
b) They don't neglect their legitimate responsibilites (like providing for their own kids);
c) Unemployability because of drug use/abuse does NOT make them eligible for the public dole, nor do taxpayers pay for the drugs;
d) As a taxpayer, I don't have to pay to "rehabilitate" them or treat their drug-related health issues, including overdoses.
A person's body is their own, and as far as I'm concerned they can do with it what they please . . . but they have no right to impose the consequences of their poor choices on others.
Why is it that no one ever believes that, no matter how serious aproblem is, it can't get any worse???Perhaps because facts don't support this? Where has this happened? Did you read the article at the link I posted?
I apologize that I was unable to attend your high school, where "if you couldn't score a bag of pot on Lake Ave. while you were at lunch you went BACK to school to meet up with one of the many dealers there."It was and is my experience as well, both during my 10 years in NYC and my 10 years in Minneapolis. With a couple of phone calls you can have just about any illegal drug 24/7. In some cases, even delivered. Try that with alcohol or tobacco.
I don't doubt that that was your experience. But your experience is not everyones' experience. It certainly wasn't mine when I was in high school ... which come to think of ... may mean that actually the problem has gotten worse. Maybe. Maybe it's only where you lived. Inner city problems are not spread out evenly throughout the country, you know. And flyover country's problems, conversely, are not evenly spread out, either.
Do the same for Lake County, Humboldt and Del Norte and you'll see that medicinal marijuana has created a huge crime problem out here.
Plenty. Even though you can go to a doctor and get a prescription and grow your own there is still a thriving network of dealers here. You underestimate the sheer laziness of people!
I apologize that I was unable to attend your high school, where "if you couldn't score a bag of pot on Lake Ave. while you were at lunch you went BACK to school to meet up with one of the many dealers there."
I don't doubt that that was your experience. But your experience is not everyones' experience. It certainly wasn't mine when I was in high school ... which come to think of ... may mean that actually the problem has gotten worse. Maybe. Maybe it's only where you lived. Inner city problems are not spread out evenly throughout the country, you know. And flyover country's problems, conversely, are not evenly spread out, either.
. . . in a recent paper published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. Their cross-national comparison of drinking and cannabis use among 10th-graders indicates that although strict alcohol laws may prevent kids from drinking, strict marijuana laws don’t do much at all to curb use.
http://www.miller-mccune.com/legal-affairs/can-drug-policy-prevent-reefer-madness-8424/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VJX-4VW91F8-2-1&_cdi=6106&_user=10&_orig=browse&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2010&_sk=999789998&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkWb&_valck=1&md5=9e80ab0965672e7dc20605cdb9d36223&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
http://stash.norml.org/south-dakota-teens-say-marijuana-easier-to-get-than-alcohol
http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/
TG:
Get a grip. Plain text without tags is your friend.
Your prose is no great shakes, it would be easy for someone to read what you wrote rather than divine what you meant.
Where am I doing this?
The entirety of your argument pretty much consists of, "drugs make people do bad things." Drugs don't jump up of the table and into an orifice. Drugs don't make someone late to work and get them fired. Drugs don't make the decision to steal. Humans make those decisions. Plenty of folks who are addicts manage to function every day without committing crimes against other persons or property. A multitude manage to use but not get addicted to drugs & alcohol and not commit crimes.
OTOH, plenty of sober folk have committed crimes. I wonder what correlation there is between sobriety and crime? I'd bet the correlation is both positive and high. Better criminalize sobriety, I guess.
I'd like you to point out where I wrote or implied this, font-boy.
Rush is the best example for legalization to come along in a long time. Did they cause him to rob, steal or prostitute his body? Did he shoot someone over territory?
Nope, despite being doped up to his gills.
It is not the law's business to protect your mom, my mom, or anyone else's from the consequences of their decisions.
Rush is the best example for legalization to come along in a long time. Did they cause him to rob, steal or prostitute his body?:facepalm: Do you think Rush just typically "doctor shops" for a drug to feed an addiction? He became addicted to a drug, then found he needed to feed the addiction. He took a series of bad decisions that I don't believe he would have taken if he hadn't been addicted. Is this ****-ing clear???
The entirety of your argument pretty much consists of, "drugs make people do bad things."
I'd like you to point out where I wrote or implied this, font-boy.
Well I apologize that you where sheltered for so long. There have been plenty of studies done showing that it is easier for school age kids to obtain marijuana than alcohol.
So maybe it wasn't your experience, but it was mine, Horseradish's, and James Fitzer's along with countless other teens as backed up by scientific studies! Obviously it isn't only a big city problem since I would guess you consider South Dakota part of "flyover country". It may not be everyone experience but I think its big enough of a problem to reexamine our position on prohibition.
So we've been at prohibition for how long? Since 1937, so . . . 73 YEARS. Why isn't the problem wiped out by now? Is it because where not fighting with a winning strategy? How about we try it a different way since obviously prohibition hasn't worked for 73 years there seems to be no end in sight.
Face Palm! Do you think Rush just typically "doctor shops" for a drug to feed an addiction? He became addicted to a drug, then found he needed to feed the addiction. He took a series of bad decisions that I don't believe he would have taken if he hadn't been addicted. Is this ****-ing clearHuh?
What "bad decisions" are those [apart from doing something that is illegal, because obiously I'm arguing that the law is wrong]?
It is not your place - nor the place of the state - to dictate a 'healthy' lifestyle to me or anybody else.
Rush paid for his drugs with his own money, which he earned. He didn't stop coming to work, caring for his family, or being an active citizen. In fact, by any kind of standard Rush Limbaugh is a model American. I may disagree with his political views, but he is politically active, helps run charities, is a successful businessman and a well-employed person. Drugs and their influence did not make him 'asocial' - not that I think it's somehow your moral dutiy to be 'social'.
I am not "DICTATING" anyone's lifestyle. Are you really trying to tell me it's "healthy" to be addicted to oxycontin?
It is OK to get addicted to alcohol too .... until you start driving around stoned and kill people.
Pretty soon people have to interact with society on one level or another. I would like to think that most of the people with whom I'm interacting at 60 miles per hour aren't alcohol addled asshats.
...
You know what?
Forget it. Just forget this. I don't even care any more. Not really. As often as I've tried to explain myself no one seems to be getting it. I'm through.
The drug culture is also very pervasive here. Because of the medical MJ laws you see people lighting up in cars or street corners on a regular basis. The cops don't even try to stop it because the chances of that person having a 215 card are pretty darn high. Based on my observations of that drug culture, I'll pass on legal pot. =D Based on those same observations I do think that the social costs of legal pot are going to be way higher than people expect and that taxation isn't going to cover those costs.
The drug culture is also very pervasive here. Because of the medical MJ laws you see people lighting up in cars or street corners on a regular basis. The cops don't even try to stop itSounds like California circa 1975 to me. ;)
Sounds like California circa 1975 to me.
If you don't think I'm aware that it is very easy for kids to get marijuana, you're wrong. I'm sure it's very easy for many to obtain it. I think I am beginning to understand why there seems to be such a communication problem on this site ... especially so in this particular thread, in fact.
I googled one of the local doctors once and saw that he had given out over eight thousand cards in the last few years. Considering that he is one of several doctors who prescribe pot and there are only about ten thousand people living here it seems like either there are a lot of sick people here or healthy people are in fact asking for and getting 215 cards.
The drug culture is also very pervasive here. Because of the medical MJ laws you see people lighting up in cars or street corners on a regular basis. The cops don't even try to stop it because the chances of that person having a 215 card are pretty darn high
No, the argument is that people under the influence of mood and/or mind altering drugs take really bad decisions that lead to self-destructive behaviour in a lot of cases. The Limbaugh example fits this precisely.It's not just self-destructive behavior in a lot of cases. It harms plenty of others, too. If it was only self-destruction, then I could probably live with it.
It's not just self-destructive behavior in a lot of cases. It harms plenty of others, too. If it was only self-destruction, then I could probably live with it.
The one group I am especially disgusted by are the ones who believe that taxing MJ will end all of the states fiscal woes.I won't say it'll solve anybody's fiscal woes but I would think that if we were to stop spending so much time and $ on enforcement and make a little $ off of it instead it couldn't hurt. beside, way too many otherwise decent people end up in the prison system over this. Next thing you know you've turned a bunch of otherwise harmless potheads into hardened criminals. It just don't make no sense.
Had a short discussion with my brother on this subject tonight. He's got a couple of kids still living at home who he (rightfully) doesn't want smoking pot. Legalizing pot would make his job as a responsible parent just that much harder.Why? He actually counts on police to do his parenting?
Why? He actually counts on police to do his parenting?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/31/AR2010103103887.html?hpid=topnews
slightly related
Part of the problem is that most pro-drug people are poor tacticians.
You're not going to convince most people that drugs are fine. The "FREEDOM!!11!" cry isn't going to over-ride most people's "crackhead breaking in and killing my family" fears.
The pro-drug people should not be arguing about legalizing drugs now. That argument should come later.
They should be arguing that the federal government's drug prohibition is illegitimate. Just as alcohol needed an amendment for the federal government to ban it, this is a state's issue, not federal.
Personally, I would rather live in a community where drugs are banned. I would have no problem if some other state or town made a different choice. Argue federalism, not legalization.
In fact, it allows the pro-drug side to allay people's fears: we aren't legalizing drugs, we're removing the federal government from the equation. Your state can now choose whether it wants to legalize drugs.
Interesting generalization. Care to specify what kind of "personal freedom" you would like that isn't provided for in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? Not saying that's the beginning and end all of everything.
Should we be free to gamble because we have the right to free speech?
Or -- more extreme -- should I have the right to kill people who anger me because I have the right to a speedy trial and to confront my accusers?
Oh, wait.....
See what happens when such a broad-brush statement is made? Internet Authors go wacky. [tinfoil] :-*
[popcorn]
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.htmlPost 43, this thread. =D
Seems that decriminalization worked in one place it was tried. And they decriminalized way more than just pot
Slick move on the part of Soros, I saw analysis that said Barb Boxy should have lost in Cali but the sea of Prop 19 yes voters figured as long as they actually got off the couch they might as well do more damage and voted thge rest of the ticket. Between that race and the SEIU pouring money/gasoline on the Nevada race the socialists managed to preserve two of their senior power figures in the Senate. :mad:
I had to read it a few times, but I think what you are saying is that a lot of people who voted yes on 19 are democrats who don't normally vote (presumably because they don't often get off the couch), but because they had to go to the polls to vote yes on 19, there was an inordinate amount of democrat voters voting this time?
It's not an unreasonable assumption, though I don't understand the Soros connection at all.