Because like pot is really not bad

[vaskidmark]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/27/george-soros-gives-1-million-to-back-legalized-marijuana-ballot/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl1%7Csec4_lnk2%7C180523

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.

Uh huh!  Riiiiight.  Sure.  And can I get a discount if I buy all three bridges, Mr. Soros?

As much as I am opposed to the way the War on Some Drugs is being waged, I do not see Mr. Soros as being an altruistic person who merely wants to save taxpayers from unnecessary expenses.

stay safe.

[Jocassee]

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.

[vaskidmark]

I mean...the man has a point.

So does my head.

I'm just wondering out loud what else might be behind this move to support legalization.

http://www.fmr.no/george-soros-agenda-for-drug-legalization-death-and-welfare.78404-10285.html

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.

stay safe.

[Jamisjockey]

Just because he's a crazed commie doesn't mean that the prohibition movement is wrong.

[RevDisk]

Just because he's a crazed commie doesn't mean that the prohibition movement is wrong.

Ayep.  No person is a movie villain the kicks puppies for entertainment and is completely evil.  Folks have a wide variety of good and bad attributes.  It's entirely possible to concede that a person is correct on an issue without validating the rest of his position.

And he is correct.

[roo_ster]

Generally speaking, if G Soros or the NYT is in agreement with me, I re-check my own position to make sure I haven't temporarily gone insane.

IN this case, Soros is not 100% evil.

[GigaBuist]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

[TommyGunn]

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 ....

[Tallpine]

It amazes me how some people can promote personal freedom in one area but not in another.

[Jamisjockey]

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 ....

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.

[BridgeRunner]

What proportion of its residents do the nations of Europe have incarcerated at any given time?

Sounds like a success to me.  We spend too much money keeping too many people imprisoned. 

Heck, a cousin of a cousin spends a couple weeks a couple times a year most years in the county lockup, invariably because he got caught smoking a joint with some juveniles or possessing a little too much pot or some similarly slightly aggravated minor offense related to pot use.

Sure, the guy is a loser, but he's got some people looking out for him, which means that when he's not in jail, he's more or less gainfully employed and has been working intermittently on getting some trade-related education and credentials.  But getting locked up periodically for basically being stupid and liking pot does not one any good.  It hurts his kid--lives with the babymama, spends a lot of time with cousin, who tries to teach the kid some important stuff.  Justin going to jail interrupts the child support and reduces the measure of stability that the smarter relatives have worked to build in his life.  It interrupts Justin's work and school and ability to try to improve his life.  It costs the county a whole lot of money.

And it does no one any good at all.  What is the freaking point of that?

Our jails and prisons house a whole lot of hardened criminals, but they are also full of a whole lot of people who are just dumb enough to keep thinking they won't get caught.  Sure, plenty of them are not great people, but tossing them in prison doesn't do anything to change that.  Maybe stupid should hurt--but do taxpayers really need to fund the hurt?

[mtnbkr]

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

[makattak]

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

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.  

[HankB]

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.

[AmbulanceDriver]

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.

^This.  This is my position on drugs to a T.

I used to be "BLAAAAARG DRUGS BAD BLAAAAAARG!"

Am I gonna use drugs?  Nope.  I've seen what happens way too often.   But if you wanna use drugs, and follow the above rules....  By all means, go for it.

[KD5NRH]

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 solution to that is to get the lethargic stoners out of the prisons so we can keep burglars in there for full, long sentences.

[KD5NRH]

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;

That one's easy; no breaks whatsoever for any behavior committed while intoxicated in any form.  Some actions (like causing a wreck by driving while intoxicated) should even be considered intentional and/or premeditated and held to higher penalties.

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;

Drug testing for any government benefits, and if a parent tests positive while trying to get benefits for a child, take the kid away.  I might provide a very limited exemption for easily produced drugs, (it doesn't cost anything to drop a line of cannabis seeds between the corn and the okra) provided it can be positively shown that the use is unrelated to the parent's un/underemployment.  Same for anyone delinquent on child support payments.

[Tallpine]

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

Hey - I never said which some people that I was referring to 

[grampster]

I always wondered why it's ok one has to submit oneself to be drug screened to get hired, or random drug screened to keep the job, yet it's somehow a violation of someone's rights to be screened for drug use to collect welfare, or move into taxpayer paid housing.

[Harold Tuttle]

it's kinda hard to rally the pitchfork & torch militia
when they are off staring at double rainbows

[BridgeRunner]

Drug testing for any government benefits, and if a parent tests positive while trying to get benefits for a child, take the kid away. 

What would be the benefit of that?  And how many foster kids are you willing to house?

[geronimotwo]

it's kinda hard to rally the pitchfork & torch militia
when they are off staring at double rainbows

dude,  FULL double rainbows!

[Tallpine]

Somewhere over the rainbow, way up high,
There's a land that I dreamed of once in a lullaby.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Just because he's a crazed commie doesn't mean that the prohibition movement is wrong.

I think vaskidmark is just questioning his motives, as Soros has always shown contempt for anything like freedom.

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.

What about Sindawe?

[TommyGunn]

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.
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.