Two House bills would end federal prohibition of marijuana

[musiclady]

The problem is legalization is happening one way or another; there's no way we're going to go backwards on this. Why not try to pull every advantage you can out of something that is in the process of happening anyway? There's no reason to allow it to become a weapon for the left to use against conservatives.

If I were willing to sacrifice my principles for political gain, I'd be just like a leftist.

Maybe I'd become pro-abortion because leftists use it as a weapon against me.

Some things are worth fighting for, no matter what the 'advantage' to the other side.

[alicewonders]

The reason this is being used to get young people to the polls is that young people traditionally do not vote in huge numbers, period.  They came out in droves to vote for Obama though - because he made promises to them that they don't feel he kept.

Sure, there are lots of baby boomers that would agree to legalization - but, as a group - we are already out there voting on other issues.  There would be some in that group that would be spurred to get out to vote, where they haven't been already - but not in the numbers that the issue would get the youth out.  I think that's why Ron Paul had such a youth following.

I agree with Andy that this should never have been a federal issue to start with.  The War on Drugs has only enabled drug cartels, law enforcement and politicians to get rich, rich, rich!  The feds will never want to end it.  But the Democrats, with their usual brilliant strategy, will profit from this trick pony.  You wait and see, the GOP will step right in their trap - as they always do.

I would love to see the Republican party turn the tables on them - just once!  Pass the bills - the Democrats will $hit their pants!

[Dexter]

If I were willing to sacrifice my principles for political gain, I'd be just like a leftist.

Maybe I'd become pro-abortion because leftists use it as a weapon against me.

Some things are worth fighting for, no matter what the 'advantage' to the other side.

Do you believe illegal weed is one of those things that is worth fighting for even at the cost of giving advantages to the opposition? If so, why is it so important to you? What makes legalized weed so bad?

[Free Vulcan]

I guess I'm a whiskey, cigars, and a fine piece of tail kind of guy. Just don't get the weed thing. But, as long as people aren't allowed to drive or work high, I can look the other way if it will suck the wind out of this paramilitary drug war.

[musiclady]

Do you believe illegal weed is one of those things that is worth fighting for even at the cost of giving advantages to the opposition? If so, why is it so important to you? What makes legalized weed so bad?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is a legitimate question, so I'll answer it truthfully (if you're just baiting, it still is worth stating for the serious members of this forum).

I don't believe illegal weed is anywhere near on the same plane of evil as abortion.  I simply used it as a comparison to make the point.

I'm on a different page than some of my fellow conservatives who lean libertarian on this issue.  I don't believe in legalizing recreational drugs which serve no purpose other than getting high/damaging one's ability to think clearly.  (That distinguishes it from alcohol use which has many purposes other than getting high).

I believe the criminalization of marijuana possession is way out of whack relative to the severity of the crime, so I believe in the lessening of penalties for those crimes. 

I understand that there are logical arguments for legalization, and have read many well-thought-out posts from legitimate conservatives who disagree with me.  I respectfully disagree with their positions because my view is that marijuana is more damaging than useful (medical use is a different issue).

I would be happy to continue the conversation with any serious member of this forum.

Dex, you do not qualify in that regard, so this will end our discussion.

[Dexter]

I don't believe illegal weed is anywhere near on the same plane of evil as abortion.  I simply used it as a comparison to make the point.

I figured as much; that's why I asked.

I'm on a different page than some of my fellow conservatives who lean libertarian on this issue.  I don't believe in legalizing recreational drugs which serve no purpose other than getting high/damaging one's ability to think clearly.  (That distinguishes it from alcohol use which has many purposes other than getting high).

What uses other than intoxication does alcohol have that weed does not?

I believe the criminalization of marijuana possession is way out of whack relative to the severity of the crime, so I believe in the lessening of penalties for those crimes. 

Just out of curiosity, what do you believe the penalties should be for marijuana possession?

I understand that there are logical arguments for legalization, and have read many well-thought-out posts from legitimate conservatives who disagree with me.  I respectfully disagree with their positions because my view is that marijuana is more damaging than useful (medical use is a different issue).

Do you support marijuana being legal for medical use?

I would be happy to continue the conversation with any serious member of this forum.

Dex, you do not qualify in that regard, so this will end our discussion.

You should post this stuff in a disclaimer before your post starts so I don't bother typing out a response I am not qualified to make.

[alicewonders]

Just my quick opinion.  If a person wants to come home and have a martini or a glass of wine to "unwind and relax", that is considered OK - as long as they don't overdue it and beat up their wife, drive a car or let a minor do it.  As long as they show up for work the next day, able to do their job competently - nobody really cares.

If a person is depressed or anxious, and they go to their doctor to get a prescription for a drug that will calm them down, help them relax - that's OK too - subject to the same conditions above.

But if a person doesn't like to drink alcohol (for whatever reason), or doesn't like taking prescribed drugs that may or may not be subject to mass lawsuits initiated by cowboy-hat-wearing lawyers in a year or two - and they prefer to smoke an herb which could be grown in their own back yard easily - without adulterants or profits given to huge corporate entities and government agencies in the form of taxes,etc.....subject to the conditions above.......why is that a bad thing?

Whose business is it?  As long as responsible adults recreate responsibly - who the hell should care?

I say legalize it and let people grow their own - enough for personal use - and move on to things that really are dangerous and invasive to our personal freedoms.

[Dexter]

Just my quick opinion.  If a person wants to come home and have a martini or a glass of wine to "unwind and relax", that is considered OK - as long as they don't overdue it and beat up their wife, drive a car or let a minor do it.  As long as they show up for work the next day, able to do their job competently - nobody really cares.

If a person is depressed or anxious, and they go to their doctor to get a prescription for a drug that will calm them down, help them relax - that's OK too - subject to the same conditions above.

But if a person doesn't like to drink alcohol (for whatever reason), or doesn't like taking prescribed drugs that may or may not be subject to mass lawsuits initiated by cowboy-hat-wearing lawyers in a year or two - and they prefer to smoke an herb which could be grown in their own back yard easily - without adulterants or profits given to huge corporate entities and government agencies in the form of taxes,etc.....subject to the conditions above.......why is that a bad thing?

Whose business is it?  As long as responsible adults recreate responsibly - who the hell should care?

I say legalize it and let people grow their own - enough for personal use - and move on to things that really are dangerous and invasive to our personal freedoms.

Good post.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If I were willing to sacrifice my principles for political gain, I'd be just like a leftist.

Maybe I'd become pro-abortion because leftists use it as a weapon against me.

Some things are worth fighting for, no matter what the 'advantage' to the other side.

Protecting the unborn and protecting me from myself are two different things.

The former is worthwhile, the later is the essence of tyranny.

[ABX]

If I were willing to sacrifice my principles for political gain, I'd be just like a leftist.

So you believe that government bureaucrats criminally regulating a plant that grows out of the ground is a Conservative, limited-government principle?  What happens when kids find out there are other plants they can smoke to get high, should the government then regulate those? Pine needles, smoke those and you can get high. Several cacti as well. How about Stevia, a plant that grows wild throughout the US. The FDA is already moving to ban that because kids can get high off it. How do you regulate that, not only does it grow wild, it is in many gardens, but many use it as a holistic medicine and natural sweetner?  What kind of government over-reach will take place that bans something like that? Do you really think the government should be that big and that powerful that it bans a stupid plant?

People should be responsible for their actions if they harm others. We've created a world where the banning of a stupid plant has created a gigantic criminal underground and police state to counter it that far surpasses any problems it caused before it is banned.


Decriminalizing the possession and personal use would result in one of the biggest reductions in government over-reach and spending we would see in our lifetime.  Close to 30% of our law enforcement spending is related to pot or the criminal enterprises created because of its banning. A large percentage of our domestic surveillance laws, asset seizure laws, and other encroachments into personal liberty and civil rights are related to the fight against this stupid plant.

A reminder, this is coming from a person who can't stand stoners and would never touch pot.
Just a few years ago I fell in the crowd of 'lock them up and throw away the key'- that is until I started looking at the numbers and the resulting crime increase because of the criminalization.

[musiclady]

Protecting the unborn and protecting me from myself are two different things.

The former is worthwhile, the later is the essence of tyranny.

I understand that position, but respectfully disagree, only in that there is potentially much more at stake in marijuana use than protecting you from yourself.

In that sense, it is not 'tyranny' to keep it illegal.

(Again........ I'm not a libertarian, so I'm on a different page from many on this issue).

[musiclady]

So you believe that government bureaucrats criminally regulating a plant that grows out of the ground is a Conservative, limited-government principle?  What happens when kids find out there are other plants they can smoke to get high, should the government then regulate those? Pine needles, smoke those and you can get high. Several cacti as well. How about Stevia, a plant that grows wild throughout the US. The FDA is already moving to ban that because kids can get high off it. How do you regulate that, not only does it grow wild, it is in many gardens, but many use it as a holistic medicine and natural sweetner?  What kind of government over-reach will take place that bans something like that? Do you really think the government should be that big and that powerful that it bans a stupid plant?

People should be responsible for their actions if they harm others. We've created a world where the banning of a stupid plant has created a gigantic criminal underground and police state to counter it that far surpasses any problems it caused before it is banned.


Decriminalizing the possession and personal use would result in one of the biggest reductions in government over-reach and spending we would see in our lifetime.  Close to 30% of our law enforcement spending is related to pot or the criminal enterprises created because of its banning. A large percentage of our domestic surveillance laws, asset seizure laws, and other encroachments into personal liberty and civil rights are related to the fight against this stupid plant.

A reminder, this is coming from a person who can't stand stoners and would never touch pot.
Just a few years ago I fell in the crowd of 'lock them up and throw away the key'- that is until I started looking at the numbers and the resulting crime increase because of the criminalization.

I have already stated that I agree with decriminalizing the possession and use of marijuana.

I still don't think it should be legalized.  (And I'm not sure it's being a plant has anything to do with it, but I confess that its planthood affects me far less than the damage it does to the people who use it).

[musiclady]

You should post this stuff in a disclaimer before your post starts so I don't bother typing out a response I am not qualified to make.

You should read posts to the end before you respond.

It's a good policy and will prevent irrational responses to things that are stated at the beginning but clarified as the post progresses.

[Dexter]

I confess that its planthood affects me far less than the damage it does to the people who use it.

What damage would that be? Alcohol causes more damage in every possible way.

[EdinVA]

In the year 1900 one could go into almost any apothecary shop in the country and buy anything you had the funds to pay for.  I say go back to that but keep in mind that doing so would require each individual to be responsible  for what occurs as the result!

Agree, over 21 it is your behind, you can do what you want with it, BUT, you sell/give it to kids and there MUST be hell to pay. (flogging/stoning/execution)  None of this mamby pampy crap we do now.

[musiclady]

Agree, over 21 it is your behind, you can do what you want with it, BUT, you sell/give it to kids and there MUST be hell to pay. (flogging/stoning/execution)  None of this mamby pampy crap we do now.

I very much agree with you here.  Getting kids started on harmful drugs should result in severe penalties.

[truth_seeker]

The assumption here of course being that only the young think that weed should be legal.

There are a whole lot of old stoners that think the same.

Most people from about 68 or 70 down, who have lived since the 1960s and familiarity with marijuana in some manner. That is just about everybody. I am not saying they used it, or condone use. But they are not olde, lame prudes.

As a recovered alcoholic with over 21 years sober, I say if marijuana needs to be illegal, so should alcohol be illegal. I gave up pot years and years before quitting drinking.

Marijuana has been helpful with people with legitimate medical issues, like nausea, pain to mention just two, but there are others.

True, a lot of people play the system, and get prescriptions for "medical marijuana," but would probably get it anyway.

While marijuana can be "abused," so can many substances, including legal prescription pain meds.

Fortunately the trend is towards education, not criminalization. A lot of drinkers take taxis home. Lots of employers test for drugs and alcohol, per their employee agreements.

But we should recognize by now, from prohibition and the war on all drugs, that it doesn't work, and it makes criminals out everyman.

There is NOT a compelling argument for our federal government, or even state governments to outlaw marijuana.

When I listen to the "outlaw arguments," they sound like culture war, social control types of arguments. Not small government, or conservative, but rather a big government to regulate and prohibit human freedoms.

If the fedgov must do anything, let them enact mandatory labeling for pot: "Use of this herb may make it difficult to stop laughing, or to get your face away from the bag of chips."

If it is or becomes legal in California, I don't intend to use it. But it is reassuring that IF I someday have a medical condition which it can help, I will have the right to legally decide to try it.



 

[Dexter]

Most people from about 68 or 70 down, who have lived since the 1960s and familiarity with marijuana in some manner. That is just about everybody. I am not saying they used it, or condone use. But they are not olde, lame prudes.

As a recovered alcoholic with over 21 years sober, I say if marijuana needs to be illegal, so should alcohol be illegal. I gave up pot years and years before quitting drinking.

Marijuana has been helpful with people with legitimate medical issues, like nausea, pain to mention just two, but there are others.

True, a lot of people play the system, and get prescriptions for "medical marijuana," but would probably get it anyway.

While marijuana can be "abused," so can many substances, including legal prescription pain meds.

Fortunately the trend is towards education, not criminalization. A lot of drinkers take taxis home. Lots of employers test for drugs and alcohol, per their employee agreements.

But we should recognize by now, from prohibition and the war on all drugs, that it doesn't work, and it makes criminals out everyman.

There is NOT a compelling argument for our federal government, or even state governments to outlaw marijuana.

When I listen to the "outlaw arguments," they sound like culture war, social control types of arguments. Not small government, or conservative, but rather a big government to regulate and prohibit human freedoms.

If the fedgov must do anything, let them enact mandatory labeling for pot: "Use of this herb may make it difficult to stop laughing, or to get your face away from the bag of chips."

If it is or becomes legal in California, I don't intend to use it. But it is reassuring that IF I someday have a medical condition which it can help, I will have the right to legally decide to try it.

Another excellent post.

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

I understand that position, but respectfully disagree, only in that there is potentially much more at stake in marijuana use than protecting you from yourself.

In that sense, it is not 'tyranny' to keep it illegal.

(Again........ I'm not a libertarian, so I'm on a different page from many on this issue).

Which jail would best be suited to hold Mother Nature on cultivation charges?

There is an equal (if not greater even) stake in protecting you against the abuse of alcohol.

Do you favor reinstating the 21st Amendment?

[musiclady]

Which jail would best be suited to hold Mother Nature on cultivation charges?

The same one she's in for cultivating poisonous mushrooms, various man-eating plants, and for giving birth to piranhas. 

There is an equal (if not greater even) stake in protecting you against the abuse of alcohol.

Do you favor reinstating the 21st Amendment?

I've been asked this question before on other internet debates (part of the reason I usually avoid them), but have already stated my view that there is a difference between having a glass of wine with dinner for social or taste purposes (or a glass of beer watching a football game if you will) and the recreational use of marijuana for the express purpose of making one high and altering ones mental state.

I realize that others don't see the distinction as that significant, but I do.

(The answer to your 21st amendment question is implied in my answer here, which I think you probably understand.  If not, my answer is a resounding NO).

[Luis Gonzalez]

The same one she's in for cultivating poisonous mushrooms, various man-eating plants, and for giving birth to piranhas. 

I've been asked this question before on other internet debates (part of the reason I usually avoid them), but have already stated my view that there is a difference between having a glass of wine with dinner for social or taste purposes (or a glass of beer watching a football game if you will) and the recreational use of marijuana for the express purpose of making one high and altering ones mental state.

I realize that others don't see the distinction as that significant, but I do.

(The answer to your 21st amendment question is implied in my answer here, which I think you probably understand.  If not, my answer is a resounding NO).

Is your opinion on both the use of marijuana and the effects of it based on personal experience?

[EdinVA]

Which jail would best be suited to hold Mother Nature on cultivation charges?

There is an equal (if not greater even) stake in protecting you against the abuse of alcohol.

Do you favor reinstating the 21st Amendment?

There are many dangerous occupations that require absolute concentration.  You can smell alcohol but you cannot tell if someone has been smoking pot.
The cost to an employer having to test weekly or even daily is prohibitive.
There is more to the conversation than just ME.... 
Weren't you one of those yelling at us about vaccines?
You need to have a consistent position.

[musiclady]

Is your opinion on both the use of marijuana and the effects of it based on personal experience?

Absolutely irrelevant to the discussion, as is any conclusion you draw from my calling out your diversionary tactic.

[truth_seeker]

Which jail would best be suited to hold Mother Nature on cultivation charges?

There is an equal (if not greater even) stake in protecting you against the abuse of alcohol.

Do you favor reinstating the 21st Amendment?

There is a huge problem which is NOT discussed. It is prescription pain medicine addiction, by seniors. Narcotics. Opioids. Heroin in tablet form, so you don't think of yourself as a "junkie."

Many seniors are strung out on manmade heroin, which is what pain meds are. They are terribly addicting, physically and mentally. You be the person who tells a white haired senior they can't have their Vicodine, Darvon, etc.

They will tell you in no uncertain terms, that they NEED them. Sure, because they are ADDICTED to them. It is dangerous to drive while on them, but when anybody when is under the influence, they don't reason well.

And many doctors don't want the hassle or responsibility of getting their patients off the drugs; ones they no longer need, ones that are harmful, etc. Just let them continue using the drugs, until they die. (Although their quality of life is immensely worse when strung out on drugs)

But if you truly want a government big and costly enough to police the illegal use of marijuana, be sure to push for equally strong enforcement of prescription, big pharma, manmade heroin use by seniors.

The TRUTH is the control freak pseudoconservatives, think in cultural terms. They are cool with granny driving loaded on her pain meds, but they hate a long haired 20 something, sitting on a park bench meditating on the state of the universe, while high on God's weed.

[musiclady]

There are many dangerous occupations that require absolute concentration.  You can smell alcohol but you cannot tell if someone has been smoking pot.
The cost to an employer having to test weekly or even daily is prohibitive.
There is more to the conversation than just ME.... 
Weren't you one of those yelling at us about vaccines?
You need to have a consistent position.

Your point here is key, Ed.

The undetectable use of marijuana (one joint only) slows down reflexes and mentally affects the user, and it's not just in 'dangerous occupations' that it is important to keep one's reactions sharp (the medical profession comes to mind).

It is dangerous to drink at many jobs, but harder to hide.  Marijuana use is often undetectable other than through a blood test, and the cost of that is prohibitive for most businesses.