Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: zahc on June 23, 2011, 06:20:33 PM
-
It's still sad that a bill needs to be passed to get the feds from doing something they have no authority to be doing in the first place.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43508025
I was also wondering, if this passed, where exactly would weed be legal (before the state-level scrambles to illegalize it)? I think most states have their own laws against it but I'm sure there are some that don't.
-
I dunno, but the BP and DEA would have a lot less traffic, and the Mexican pot gangs would get real poor for awhile until they switched over to meth or coccaine and built appropriate supply lines and infrastructure.
Hell, decriminalizing the growing and smoking of it in quantities of less than half a dozen plants and posession of less than a pound would make a huge dent in narco-crime.
-
You want to make the big banks that do the money-laundering collapse? What are you suggesting? :O
-
I doubt you will see much difference until you see Winston THC cigarettes at the corning store.
-
I've become a lot more libertarian-minded regarding my views on drugs and drug laws, but somehow because Barney Frank is for this, I want to be against it.
-
I don't like to be a spoilsport, but I suspect this is a gesture.
That said, to paraphrase a Russian blogger: "There's no choice. We need to praise Barney Frank now."
-
I've become a lot more libertarian-minded regarding my views on drugs and drug laws, but somehow because Barney Frank is for this, I want to be against it.
I understand, I really do.
Gotta recall the old saws about broken clocks, "enemies of my enemies," and such.
I don't like to be a spoilsport, but I suspect this is a gesture.
That said, to paraphrase a Russian blogger: "There's no choice. We need to praise Barney Frank now."
Heh.
I think I understand the sentiment.
-
There are more pressing areas regarding liberty that need to be addressed before precious energy is expended and wasted on the pot issue, IMHO.
-
It's still sad that a bill needs to be passed to get the feds from doing something they have no authority to be doing in the first place.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43508025
I was also wondering, if this passed, where exactly would weed be legal (before the state-level scrambles to illegalize it)? I think most states have their own laws against it but I'm sure there are some that don't.
Well, according to the constitution, the states may have the right to regulate weed. The Fed, has absolutely no right to do so.
I don't buy the argument that billions in tax revenue will be generated, as most states won't legalize it.
There are more pressing areas regarding liberty that need to be addressed before precious energy is expended and wasted on the pot issue, IMHO.
Actually, there are many areas regarding liberty that are being pissed on by our betters because of the pot issue. Get caught with a joint and a gun?
Individually, they are misdemeanors. Together, they are felony with mandatory sentencing.
Selling a little pot to your friends? Get a no-knock warrant while federal storm troopers storm your house. Hell, the war on drugs and the possiblity of evidence being destroyed is what brought us the no-knock.
-
Hell, the war on drugs and the possiblity of evidence being destroyed is what brought us the no-knock.
QFT.
-
We are all smoking the weed of oppressive governance, like it or not. It is nothing less than a mind-altering substance. Unfortunately, it's neither recreational nor illuminating.
-
Posted by: JamisJockey
Hell, the war on drugs and the possiblity of evidence being destroyed is what brought us the no-knock.
QFT.
If it wasn't pot they would come up with some other reason. Maybe something like not paying back your student loans...
-
To paraphrase a Russian blogger: "There's no choice. We need to praise Barney Frank now."
Meh. He gets no praise for being on the right side of one issue. Not when he's opposed to life and liberty on so many other things.
-
Actually, there are many areas regarding liberty that are being pissed on by our betters because of the pot issue. Get caught with a joint and a gun?
Individually, they are misdemeanors. Together, they are felony with mandatory sentencing.
Selling a little pot to your friends? Get a no-knock warrant while federal storm troopers storm your house. Hell, the war on drugs and the possiblity of evidence being destroyed is what brought us the no-knock.
^^ This. Although I don't understand how "Individually," getting caught with a gun is a misdemeanor. That's why I have my permit and that's why my State passed Constitutional Carry. Because carrying a gun isn't "wrong."
I have people I no longer hang out with since I've started carrying several years ago, due to the whole (guns+drugs+zero_criminal_intent)=(PMITA_Fed_Time) issue.
Despite these associations, I've never smoked so much as one whiff off a joint/bong/whatever.
-
Ron: I'm wondering what you view as significantly higher priority? Millions of people are in jail for weed, and in many cases that results in broken families (which increase the likelyhood of the children becoming criminals), a guy who's only "crime" is smoking a plant becoming a hardened violent criinal in order to survive jail, massive state local and federal $ being wasted, jail overcrowding resulting in actual criminals getting early release etc... I could go on, but the cost to society both in dollars spent, famiies destroyed, and police powers expanded has been enormous.
-
Millions of people are in jail for weed,
really??
http://www.mahalo.com/answers/how-many-people-are-in-jail-for-marijuana-related-crimes-how-much-does-that-cost-society-what-percentage-are-violent
heck even norml's not trying to fly that, though its a good sound bite
heres norml's link i left out
http://www.skeptically.org/recdrugs/id8.html
-
^^^^ Now those were some very interesting statistics cited there. Hmmm.
-
Huh, I was guessing and apparently I was off. Good job, you must be so proud of yourself! :rolleyes:
-
not especially. i just know i've sat in jail. and no one there more than overnite was there for possession. in point of fact i've gotten caught with 1/4 pound and walked and i've sat in court and seen 2 guys go home with mom and dad after getting caught with a bale of pot. heck last time i was in dc jail they came round for pretrial and asked "do you do any drugs?" "just pot." "doesn't count."" and that was 20 years ago
-
^^ This. Although I don't understand how "Individually," getting caught with a gun is a misdemeanor. That's why I have my permit and that's why my State passed Constitutional Carry. Because carrying a gun isn't "wrong."
I have people I no longer hang out with since I've started carrying several years ago, due to the whole (guns+drugs+zero_criminal_intent)=(PMITA_Fed_Time) issue.
Despite these associations, I've never smoked so much as one whiff off a joint/bong/whatever.
Oh I fully agree. But the reality of the issue is that in most states, carrying without a permit is a crime. Here in Texas, its only a Class A Mis, unless you're in a school (then its an F). And of course in some states it jumps right to the big F.
-
Huh, I was guessing and apparently I was off. Good job, you must be so proud of yourself! :rolleyes:
Honestly, my first response was the same. I really didn't think there were that many there just for pot.
-
its hard as heck to go to jail for "just pot" usually if you look you find a host of other offenses. sometime with a good lawyer you can get a deal to plead to a pot bust so as to not ruin your life but then folks try to scam and claim it was all they did. does it happen occasionally? yup usually when someone tries to get cute in court or has bad/no legal help
-
its hard as heck to go to jail for "just pot" usually if you look you find a host of other offenses. sometime with a good lawyer you can get a deal to plead to a pot bust so as to not ruin your life but then folks try to scam and claim it was all they did. does it happen occasionally? yup usually when someone tries to get cute in court or has bad/no legal help
Well that makes everything okay then.
-
being stupid is supposed to have consequences.
you gotta see it to believe it. some burnt out 19 year old standing up and proclaiming loudly "this is bogus dude! he never read me my rights!" and then that sad look as they go through "that door"
"
-
being stupid is supposed to have consequences.
You keep using that word.
It doesn't mean what you think it means.
-
being stupid is supposed to have consequences.
you gotta see it to believe it. some burnt out 19 year old standing up and proclaiming loudly "this is bogus dude! he never read me my rights!" and then that sad look as they go through "that door"
"
Being stupid should have consequences. Ruin your life due to drugs, fall on your face. Die in the gutter. Try and steal from me to get money for drugs, get shot in the face. But jail? So many things we make illegal, when instead we could just leave people the freedom to thin out the gene pool a little.
-
they can be thinned from the herd in jail too. but in reality jail saves lives. its like the dt's are gods way of telling you you drink too much. waking up in jail and having a bit of time to reflect on your sins can be a turning point. not wanting to go back can be inspirational as well
-
they can be thinned from the herd in jail too. but in reality jail saves lives. its like the dt's are gods way of telling you you drink too much. waking up in jail and having a bit of time to reflect on your sins can be a turning point. not wanting to go back can be inspirational as well
Oh, the wonderful and inspirational effects of state-sponsored violence.
-
You keep using that word.
It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Stupid, or consequences? [popcorn]
-
Oh, the wonderful and inspirational effects of state-sponsored violence.
A guy I know was just telling me today, that he knew he had to quit drinking when he realized that he was drinking every other day, and wearing hand-cuffs all the other days. Of course in his case, he wasn't being arrested merely for possessing or using his particular drug. I'm just saying that "state-sponsored violence" can sometimes have those wonderful and inspirational effects.
FTR, I'm OK with legalizing pot.
-
Stupid, or consequences? [popcorn]
Consequences, of course.
-
A guy I know was just telling me today, that he knew he had to quit drinking when he realized that he was drinking every other day, and wearing hand-cuffs all the other days. Of course in his case, he wasn't being arrested merely for possessing or using his particular drug. I'm just saying that "state-sponsored violence" can sometimes have those wonderful and inspirational effects.
FTR, I'm OK with legalizing pot.
Let's get on the stuff we all agree with:
1. Both libertarians and conservatives, to the best of my knowledge, agree that the state is an violent actor. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. THe use of violence is often justified - to kill terrorists, imprison thieves and robbers, and (in the mind of everybody but anarchists) to collect the taxes necessary to support these activities. Again, this is not a criticism of the state per se, but a description of its nature.
2. To paraphrase the great Chris Rock, a law basically is society stating "I wouldn't do that s&^% if I were you." So in our scenario, marijuana prohibition is inherently society deciding to wave a police baton at the individual and threatening to thwack him one if he smokes/inhales. Should this individual then proceed to act against our instruction, is the person getting thwacked a consequence of his own action, or a consequence of our decision to make a threat and follow through?
Even granting - which I do not yet do, but I imagine some individuals might - that smoking weed under the current laws is stupid, this does not yet justify, morally, these acts.
-
The State does not own your state of mind.
This nation is sorely confused about mind-altering substances. What is permitted and what isn't is often "arbitrary," a nice way of saying someone's ox is getting gored and that someone's money pot is at risk.
Mind-altering substances have been coeval with the growth of human civilization, from time immemorial. Some of sects that advanced liberty incorporated them as an intrinsic part of their rituals and process.
It always comes back to how and why anything is being used and beyond that to the virtue of the user.
-
they can be thinned from the herd in jail too. but in reality jail saves lives. its like the dt's are gods way of telling you you drink too much. waking up in jail and having a bit of time to reflect on your sins can be a turning point. not wanting to go back can be inspirational as well
This is where we differ.
It is not the Government's job to save our lives. That is between us, our gods, and our families to decide.
Jail should be the last resort of government, a place for people who are violating the rights of others in such a fashion that they cannot be allowed to mingle with the general population for a period of time. Getting stupid drunk only hurts yourself.
-
Getting stupid drunk only hurts yourself.
if that were at least 1/2 true i'd agree. sadly not
http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/health_care_costs.htm
-
Getting stupid drunk only hurts yourself.
if that were at least 1/2 true i'd agree. sadly not
http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/health_care_costs.htm
Again, only because our socialist ways let us make this our problem. Eliminate all forms of public health care.
-
The State does not own your state of mind.
This nation is sorely confused about mind-altering substances. What is permitted and what isn't is often "arbitrary," a nice way of saying someone's ox is getting gored and that someone's money pot is at risk.
Mind-altering substances have been coeval with the growth of human civilization, from time immemorial. Some of sects that advanced liberty incorporated them as an intrinsic part of their rituals and process.
It always comes back to how and why anything is being used and beyond that to the virtue of the user.
Did someone listen to the latest Common Sense podcast by Dan Carlin? He said almost exactly the same thing.
Chris
-
Again, only because our socialist ways let us make this our problem. Eliminate all forms of public health care.
i take it you didn't read the part about the children of drunks?
-
Actually, there are many areas regarding liberty that are being pissed on by our betters because of the pot issue. Get caught with a joint and a gun?
Individually, they are misdemeanors. Together, they are felony with mandatory sentencing.
Those with NFA guns, medical MJ card, and CCW permit are very confused as to legality, but lawyers (in MT, least...) say it's legal, so does local BATFE office. Figure that.... ;/
-
i take it you didn't read the part about the children of drunks?
Yes, and?
Parents do all sorts of things that help or hinder their kids. It is not gov't's business to intervene, save in only the most excruciatingly extreme cases. Just because some loser breeders are raising their kids the in the white trash way doesn't make it everybody's business.
-
but we do pay . immediately and down the road
-
"Did someone listen to the latest Common Sense podcast by Dan Carlin? He said almost exactly the same thing.
Chris"
Not familiar with him. Credit years of bumping around a bunch of Gnostics in L.A.
-
If a stone sober parent beats their kid because it's "gods will" shall we ban religion?
-
i take it you didn't read the part about the children of drunks?
And? Its already illegal to beat your kids or neglect them. Nothing like more statisim to control the subjects.
-
Drugs, like guns, are a tool, no better than their users.
-
but we do pay . immediately and down the road
And when .gov tries to stop it, we still pay (because their efforts are almost but not entirely useless) but we also lose freedom as they try to "help" us for our own good.
-
Drugs, like guns, are a tool, no better than their users.
Get in line, citizen. Logic is for your betters!
-
And? Its already illegal to beat your kids or neglect them. Nothing like more statisim to control the subjects.
apparently not that illegal or those stats would not exist
-
apparently not that illegal or those stats would not exist
So, more laws will make it stop, right? ;/
-
apparently not that illegal or those stats would not exist
Not true and you know it. The stats would exist until the laws were enforced 100% and perfectly (not true in either case). More laws would not change that.
Chris
-
Getting stupid drunk only hurts yourself.
if that were at least 1/2 true i'd agree. sadly not
http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/health_care_costs.htm
i've been pro legalization since before some of you were born, that said statements like the one i bolded are not progress. great soundbite for the already converted but for those not so enlightened it makes it too easy to dismiss "the movement" wholesale
nor is the circus in montana progress
-
For years, I"ve been anti-legalization of anything. Never touched pot or anything else unless it was in an evidence bag. But as I get older, and somewhat wiser, I'm coming around on the pot issue. Make it legal, tax it like cigarettes, and spend the money. Make it illegal to drive under the influence (like it already is). Let employers do what they want to do on the issue.
Though, I've got to say, I never thought I'd see the day when tobacco use would be more of a social stigma than pot use.
-
I do not have children. I am 0% likely to abuse my children, because my children do not exist. Even were I to use meth, alcohol, pure caffeine tablets, and Super Glue at once, I would still not be more likely to abuse my children.
-
Even were I to use meth, alcohol, pure caffeine tablets, and Super Glue at once, I would still not be more likely to abuse my children.
And you wouldn't remember it, if you had.
-
Not even when double-illegal? Can we try still? ;/
-
For years, I"ve been anti-legalization of anything. Never touched pot or anything else unless it was in an evidence bag. But as I get older, and somewhat wiser, I'm coming around on the pot issue. Make it legal, tax it like cigarettes, and spend the money. Make it illegal to drive under the influence (like it already is). Let employers do what they want to do on the issue.
Though, I've got to say, I never thought I'd see the day when tobacco use would be more of a social stigma than pot use.
Ok, honest question here. Something I've never understood about the anti-legalization folks, and you seem unlikely to get vexed with me for asking.
1. When you were anti-legalization, how did you deal with the failure of Prohibition? 2. Did you feel marijuana was significantly different/worse than alcohol, and if so what was that opinion based on?
Like I said, not trying to be a jerk. But I really just can't fathom how people can hold that the WoSD is a good thing, in the face of those two questions. Since you're somewhat converted, hopefully being asked won't cause offense. :)
-
Though, I've got to say, I never thought I'd see the day when tobacco use would be more of a social stigma than pot use.
Yeah, that has gotten pretty creepy. Especially the mothers/fathers who make a big stink about how some dude's second-hand smoke might harm their children in a restaurant.
-
I do not have children. I am 0% likely to abuse my children, because my children do not exist. Even were I to use meth, alcohol, pure caffeine tablets, and Super Glue at once, I would still not be more likely to abuse my children.
Well, if you own a house, but do not rent it out, the gov't can make up an "imputed rental income" to tax you on.
So, since you have reproductive organs, but no actual children, gov't will impute an even half dozen children to you so that they can impose drug laws on you "for the (imputed) children."
Four controlled substances multiplied by six children makes 24 violations.
-
How many police man-hours were used to arrest and process those people? I'd rather have them on traffic duty or cruising town.
-
William Bennett had an op-ed piece on CNN today about how wrong Frank and Paul are on this. His basic argument was "it's for the children", and he was pretty well slammed by all the comments.
It would have been refreshing if he'd just said "drugs are bad". We can all mostly agree on that (it's just that the War on Drugs is a lot worse, IMHO, and I don't even do drugs)
-
Yeah, that has gotten pretty creepy. Especially the mothers/fathers who make a big stink about how some dude's second-hand smoke might harm their children in a restaurant.
I don't want anyone's second hand smoke, be it pot or tobacco or crack cocaine.
-
Strange bedfellows... but we libertarians have to realize that we only represent a small percent of this country's population, and if we are going to get anything done at all politically, we are going to have to cooperate with members of both of the two major statist political philosophies to do so.
-
Strange bedfellows... but we libertarians have to realize that we only represent a small percent of this country's population, and if we are going to get anything done at all politically, we are going to have to cooperate with members of both of the two major statist political philosophies to do so.
as a hint? to encourage cooperation it behooves one to not use the word "statist" as both a derogatory label and part of the name you assign those you imagine, and i stress imagine, are gonna cooperate with you. lest they continue to put itching powder in your wookie suits and snicker
-
as a hint? to encourage cooperation it behooves one to not use the word "statist" as both a derogatory label and part of the name you assign those you imagine, and i stress imagine, are gonna cooperate with you. lest they continue to put itching powder in your wookie suits and snicker
Oh no, we do not call them "statists" to their faces when we want something from them! ;)
Just because you are strongly opposed to someone's philosophy doesn't mean you can't cooperate with them on the issues you agree on. Ron Paul excoriated Barney Frank VERY harshly after the financial collapse in 2007, yet they can still work together on protecting the right of self-ownership.
-
as a hint? to encourage cooperation it behooves one to not use the word "statist" as both a derogatory label and part of the name you assign those you imagine, and i stress imagine, are gonna cooperate with you. lest they continue to put itching powder in your wookie suits and snicker
Here we go again. Keep it civil. This wookie suit *expletive deleted*it is getting quite old.
-
I'm sure people mocked Sam Adams' gang for their Indian getups too.
-
I'm sure people mocked Sam Adams' gang for their Indian getups too.
Best response I've seen to such mockery, yet. :)
-
I would like to see it. I have glaucoma. chris3