Reason TV: The closing arguments for California’s pot referendum

posted at 3:00 pm on October 24, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Color me a bit disappointed. I expected grand arguments about the nature of freedom, the petty differences on intoxication, and the social costs of both prohibition and excess license to result in a fascinating debate. At the end, though, all we seem to get is a series of slogans getting tossed by both sides of the Proposition 19 question on whether to legalize marijuana. In this Reason TV presentation that gives equal time to both sides, the rapidly-diminishing time to the election seems to have also taken the intellectual heft out of the debate:

There are good arguments for ending the waste of taxpayer dollars on a futile attempt to ban a weed that can grow almost anywhere — and does in California especially — but balancing the state budget isn’t one of them.  At best, tax receipts on marijuana might come to a few hundred million dollars a year.  California has a $26 billion hole in its annual budget.  Marijuana isn’t the cause of the budget deficit, either, and anyone who thinks that has been smoking the product a little ahead of time.  The budget deficit comes from massive overspending and regulation far beyond the relative pittance spent on marijuana prohibition in California, especially these days.

As one Prop 19 opponent notes in the video, the idea that marijuana taxation will create a windfall for California is a pipe dream, pun definitely intended.  In the first place, it will require an additional bureaucracy to manage taxation and control of marijuana, although the cost probably won’t be as high as the argument in this video.  But that won’t matter much anyway, because under the proposed law, people will just grow their own pot.  It’s not a difficult plant to cultivate, and much less expensive than buying it in the medicinal stores now operating in the state, once government gets off people’s backs.

The arguments against it don’t exactly rise to a convincing level, either.  The most effective opponent in the video is the chief of the Covina PD, who notes that getting impaired drivers off the road isn’t as easy with marijuana as it is with alcohol.  However, that ignores the fact that the police have been finding impaired drivers stoned on pot for decades by observing the impairment, just as they do with drunk drivers.  DUI laws can be modified to allow for convictions based on the observed impairment, if they don’t already allow for that, as I believe they do in many jurisdictions.

California voters should ask themselves this: is the prohibition in place for the last 70 or so years succeeding?  Does the level of success in the prohibition of marijuana make up for the public cost of imposing that prohibition, which not only includes the dollar costs but also the erosion of civil liberties in the form of no-knock raids, property seizures, and the like?  Does this prohibition make sense in the context of the legal status of alcoholic beverages, which are more toxic and create at least the same kinds of public disturbances associated with marijuana?  That’s the debate that matters.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Wind Breaker on October 24, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Your uncited ‘studies’ have about as much debate value as quoting from the Airhead America radio show, and the rest of your post resembles a 6th-grader trying to imitate Abraham Lincoln.

50 cents would be a generous offer for everything you’ve contributed on this entire thread.

Dark-Star on October 24, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Dark Star – just take a peek at the next cube over there at your day job for Think Progress.

Wind Rider on October 24, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Once again your ASSumption fails epicly. Are you really this stupid, or are you just role-playing?

Dark-Star on October 24, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Apologies to whiskytango, I skipped over the invisible /sarc tag – my bad!

Wind Rider on October 24, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Wind Rider on October 24, 2010 at 10:59 PM

This ladies and gentlemen is what can happen to you if you partake of the devil weed!

Step right up and take a gander at the incoherence and confused state of this poor creature. Show your children, warn them, but please don’t let them poke at him, he’s irritable without his weed ration.

sharrukin on October 24, 2010 at 11:11 PM

… then it’s a solid, iron clad scientific FACT!

It’s not about facts. It’s about knowing The Right Way for your neighbors to live their lives and hiring police to force them.

And then when this is questioned, you hear “but we really know The Right Way”.

Personally, I’m not contesting who knows The Right Way. Just keep the police and the government out of it.

Kohath on October 24, 2010 at 11:14 PM

Step right up and take a gander at the incoherence and confused state of this poor creature. Show your children, warn them, but please don’t let them poke at him, he’s irritable without his weed ration.

sharrukin on October 24, 2010 at 11:11 PM

And with it, he’s little more than a two-legged donkey: he stinks, makes a lot of noise, and can be led around by whoever dangles a blunt in front of his nose.

Honestly, I wonder if you even have to actually smoke weed to suffer brain damage! Just defending it’s use seems enough to reduce one’s cognitive capability to that of a slug.

Dark-Star on October 24, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Dark-Star on October 24, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Ok, so we’ve determined that you’re fine with lying to your kids, you’re fine with lying to us, and your attempts to threadjack this into a gay marriage discussion have gone absolutely nowhere, plus your misdirection for your lack of Search Engine (and reading comprehension skills) aren’t so much of a learning curve as a flatline.

Mr. Podesta isn’t gonna like this when it comes around to employee evaluation time. No “Winter Festival” bonus packet for the Dark Star, I’m afraid! Probably best at this point if you call up Markos, and go have a cold one, to commiserate getting pummeled by some mean small ‘l’ libertarian, yet again. You’re probably a borderline alky if this happens regularly.

Wind Rider on October 24, 2010 at 11:17 PM

Ok, so we’ve determined that you’re fine with lying to your kids, you’re fine with lying to us, and your attempts to threadjack this into a gay marriage discussion have gone absolutely nowhere, plus your misdirection for your lack of Search Engine (and reading comprehension skills) aren’t so much of a learning curve as a flatline.

Pssst…try running your posts through the Pothead-English translator beforehand. It at least adds a modicum of logic to the apeshit nonsense that you somehow manage to cobble together.

And please feel free to entertain us all with your incoherent blather about Mr.Podeta, your projected imaginary friend.

Dark-Star on October 24, 2010 at 11:22 PM

Tut-tut! Don’t be dissin on the man who signs your paychecks!

Usually, if I want to savor the level of comments you’ve been tossing out here, I have to go find a Gawker thread about Sarah Palin. And no, the style doesn’t work here, either.

Wind Rider on October 24, 2010 at 11:26 PM

Dark-Star on October 24, 2010 at 11:22 PM

Do you have any idea what he’s talking about? What the hell does Podesta have to do with it?

sharrukin on October 24, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Do you have any idea what he’s talking about? What the hell does Podesta have to do with it?

sharrukin on October 24, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Anything’s logical when you’re higher than a kite or dumber than a brick. Exactly which affliction Wind Breaker is suffering from is anybody’s guess.

I’d actually feel sorry for him if his pet plant didn’t cause similar stupidity in others.

Dark-Star on October 24, 2010 at 11:30 PM

I’d actually feel sorry for him if his pet plant didn’t cause similar stupidity in others.

Dark-Star on October 24, 2010 at 11:30 PM

I have heard that it can really mess up your logical thinking, but I thought that was just exaggeration.

Maybe not.

sharrukin on October 24, 2010 at 11:34 PM

I have heard that it can really mess up your logical thinking, but I thought that was just exaggeration.

sharrukin on October 24, 2010 at 11:34 PM

While I’m sure Wind Breaker and his fellow fools will scream “REEF3R M@DNE$$!!!” at the mere suggestion, that is one thing that pot is known to do.

Thankfully, unlike some drugs, cannabis fosters sloth and stupidity instead of sending users on chemical-induced rages or robbery sprees, in which case we wouldn’t be seeing nearly as much sympathy for it. (this is also what keeps other drugs from getting similar status…for now.)

Dark-Star on October 24, 2010 at 11:40 PM

sharrukin on October 24, 2010 at 11:27 PM

The Podesta line is a spin off an earlier comment, supposing that someone as so far over the top, and obnoxious about it, such as Dark Star, might possibly be not an actual conservative, but the epitome of a liberal’s imagined caricature of a SoCon. Something that an organization like Think Progress (run by John Podesta, former Clinton spinmeister and toady) might dream up, then deploy on a popular Conservative website, simply to stir the pot (no pun intended), thus creating division and angst amongst the right.

The only thing that gives me pause about that analysis is that, well, he pretty much sucks at it. He deploys all the familiar rabid liberal internet ‘debating’ styles, such as ad-hominem, misdirection (witness the attempted gay marriage thread jacking), and purely emotive and visceral fearmongering-as-talking-point doom is certain repetitiveness. Oh, and the make cutesy with the other guy’s handle is present, too, but by now it’s wearing about as thin as the laughter from a Captain I once drove around Germany that would chuckle every time we passed an Autobahn off ramp sign. (The German word for hiway exit is Ausfahrt)

Of course, I may be wrong, and he may really be what he seems to be. I’m not sure which is more disturbing.

Wind Rider on October 24, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Of course, I may be wrong, and he may really be what he seems to be. I’m not sure which is more disturbing.

Wind Rider on October 24, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Funny, I could say the same thing about you. I’m really hoping you’re not really a pot puppet who ‘debates’ with all the logic of a teenage girl, calls a valid comparison ‘threadjacking’ because you don’t like it, and other tomfoolery.

Your Podesta spinoff is yet another logical failure, made more hilarious by the fact that I do not identify as a ‘conservative’ in the first place. As to ‘over the top’, well, physician heal thyself.

Dark-Star on October 24, 2010 at 11:47 PM

Oh, and how would you define yourself, in the political spectrum. This should be hilarious.

Wind Rider on October 24, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Oh, and how would you define yourself, in the political spectrum. This should be hilarious.

Wind Rider on October 24, 2010 at 11:53 PM

…because you’ll laugh at whatever I say. So tell me why I should give an overgrown toddler like you the satisfaction?

Also on that note, I’m beginning to understand that this issue is much like many others, in that there is no real debate. How the hell do you debate a bunch of entitled people who invent ‘rights’ and then throw a temper tantrum until they get what they want?

Dark-Star on October 24, 2010 at 11:56 PM

So, again, you got nothin. Say good night, Dark Star.

Wind Rider on October 25, 2010 at 12:00 AM

Also on that note, I’m beginning to understand that this issue is much like many others, in that there is no real debate.

Dark-Star on October 24, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Talking to the potheads is a waste of time, but non-potheads read the thread as well and some engage in the debate, so its not pointless.

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 12:01 AM

So, again, you got nothin.

Wind Rider on October 25, 2010 at 12:00 AM

So, again, you deliberately play (?) stupid.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Talking to the potheads is a waste of time, but non-potheads read the thread as well and some engage in the debate, so its not pointless.

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Touche. Problem is that Uncle Sam is getting tired of refusing all the little potheads screaming “WE WANT WEED”…and the non-potheads aren’t backing him up. And unless we start doing so in force, they WILL get their way.

And Wind Breaker – for your satisfaction -

At a very rough estimate:

30% Liberal

30% Conservative (mostly on economics issues)

15% Libertarian (would be more if I gave a cr@p about the stoner brigade and their ’cause’)

15% Green

10% Other/Unclassifiable

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:05 AM

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 12:01 AM

That is until they challenge the conventional wisdom, and are branded “pot-heads”, then dismissed as unworthy of participating in the ‘real’ discussion at the grown ups’ table. At least that’s what the gist of where you’re going with that seems to be.

Wind Rider on October 25, 2010 at 12:07 AM

Wind Rider on October 25, 2010 at 12:07 AM

You haven’t made a coherent logical point as to why marijuana should be legalized, and you wonder why you are dismissed?

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 12:13 AM

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:05 AM

Interesting. Probably makes for a pretty conflicted internal narrative. Or not. Seem to have a pretty big hard on for the cannabis issue, and you’re certainly not very liberal about sexual orientation. Based on that combo, you’re probably over-rating yourself on libertarianism, and the 30% fiscal conservative certainly doesn’t cover throwing good money after bad on failed policy.

There. No laughter.

Wind Rider on October 25, 2010 at 12:15 AM

I’m wondering if CA will try legalization, regret it, and then go back like AK did. Though I think it will likely be a one-way street.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:16 AM

Interesting. Probably makes for a pretty conflicted internal narrative.

Not for awhile now. I went through quite a tumultuous period back in my high school years (including a big “Yankee Doodle” phase), trying to sort out what the heck I believed politically, why, and labels for said beliefs that others would recognize.

Seem to have a pretty big hard on for the cannabis issue

The combination of inventing rights, entitlement-mindedness and equating freedom with sucking on a bunch of burning weeds hit a nerve. So sue me. I’m also still rather upset at the libertarians for letting the stoners hijack their cause so badly, I used to identify much more with that party.

and you’re certainly not very liberal about sexual orientation.

Only because it’s being forced on me and others legally; pastors are being sued in Canada for anti-gay sermons and it may be only a matter of time here. Also I really don’t like the idea of our snot-nosed republic redefining a 10,000+ year old institution to suit a distinct minority of loudmouths. If they all just kept it to their bedrooms I couldn’t give a hoot.

Based on that combo, you’re probably over-rating yourself on libertarianism

Quite possibly. Like I said – rough estimate.

and the 30% fiscal conservative certainly doesn’t cover throwing good money after bad on failed policy.

Thing is, we can debate on ‘failed policy’ until the cows come home. Everybody has their own opinons of what constitutes throwing good money after bad…we’ll probably just have to agree to disagree.

There. No laughter.

Thank you.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:24 AM

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 12:13 AM

Ok, to save you the trouble of trudging back upthread, which can be a pain, here goes, again.

The policy is a failure, for starters. Examples – one of the primary reasons is to protect children and adolescents from obtaining cannabis, and by extension, being exposed to the availability of other dangerous substances, which total prohibition actually facilitates, rather than prevents. For the simple reason that the average convenience store clerk is a more responsible social agent than an illicit drug dealer. Repeated surveys indicate that (rightly or wrongly) teenagers feel they have more ready access to cannabis than tobacco or alcohol. That’s failure number one.

The increased ‘militarization’ of our law enforcement agencies, largely as a result of prohibition – along with the concurrent erosion of 4th Amendment protections or considerations, again, on the basis of the prohibition. This has resulted in a seige mentality amongst law enforcement, and a not so unreasonable suspicion of those who are empowered to ‘protect and serve’ – as their mostly ineffectual actions become almost random, or arbitrary, in nature. Actions, by the way, which generally escalate the level of violence during police interactions with the public, and unnecessarily place the officers, and far too often, innocent civilians placed in harms way due to mistakes in the process, in grave danger, with often tragic, irreversible outcome. It has also fostered a mentality amongst our police forces of a kind, that when viewed by our actual military, observing cop reservists in the field in Iraq, they found to be disgusting and out of line with the ROE in place at the time. Details of this phenomena are documented in a CATO study of the subject, available at their website.

Thirdly, the policy has contributed to exactly sort of erosion of societal values that opponents often cite as a reason for maintaining the status quo, primarily by the repetition of blatantly false descriptions of cannabis and its effects. False descriptions that are at first dispelled by actual experience, and completely shredded by even a cursory study of clinical evaluations on the substance. The result is the undermining of respect or trust in authority figures (not just police, but parents as well) that pass off the such distortions as truth, and render warnings about other substances, valid as they may be, suspect as well.

Fourth, the prohibition enables and funds criminal enterprise, in exactly the same way that alcohol prohibition funded and enabled Mr. Capone, and other legendary mob figures. They were enabled by prohibition, and in a repeat of history, we’re seeing the exact same effect courtesy of the Mexican Drug cartels. They make a significant percentage of their illicit income off of their best seller – cannabis. Cocaine has a higher markup and return, but the bulk of their cash comes from cannabis. They are, btw, on the same side of the issue as those here in the states in favor of continuing prohibition – they don’t want to lose their Golden Goose. Like the Mobs that gained wealth and power during alcohol prohibition, they will be substantially diminished if that stool propping them up gets kicked out from under them. That’s not a guess, that’s history.

Now to round it out, I’ll point out that the United States functioned fairly well for 138 years before the first ‘Drug Czar’, a man named Harry Anslinger, pointed out the demon within our midst that he became the longest serving Senior Federal Bureaucrat (outdistancing J Edgar Hoover by several years) by creating a job for himself to control. Which he did by lying about it, both to Congress, and the American public – he was the creative genius behind ‘Reefer Madness’, btw. He wasn’t just a liar, he was a flaming bigot, as well, using the ‘moral terpitude’ angle, specifically that cannabis would lead to interracial sex bwteen the peoples of color and white women. There’s also indications that his effort was helped along by monied interests such as the DuPont family, protecting their investment in more expensive artificial fibers, and from Randolph Hearst, doing likewise for his investment in pulp fiber from trees instead of hemp.

So, wrap it all together, and we have an rather innocuous and otherwise rather useful substance placed, with no real justification, as a schedule I controlled substance, despite there being no known lethal doseage, and an eradication/enforcement effort which is rather dysfunctional in addition to costing billions of dollars to maintain and continue, with the added benefit that it’s costing the lives of innocent citizens and police officers – and you really want to say that I’ve come up short on pointing out valid reason to legalize this stuff?

Wow.

Wind Rider on October 25, 2010 at 12:51 AM

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:16 AM

If they pass it, doubtful. That wasn’t the Portuguese experience. They found that treating the actually addictive substances as a medical versus a legal issue was more effective and cost less, too. Cannabis became a munor blip, as it isn’t addictive, and the adolescent/young adult use rates actually declined, as it lost its ‘rebel’ cachet. Wasn’t ‘cool’ any longer. At this point, it’s almost an impossibility that they’ll revert to prohibition.

Wind Rider on October 25, 2010 at 12:56 AM

It is not wise to legalize marijuana. Innocents down the road will have to bear the true cost of why that is the case.

scotash on October 25, 2010 at 3:10 AM

Wind Rider on October 25, 2010 at 12:56 AM

Why waste your skills on this mob of low-IQed, logic/fact-hating, self-righteous, nanny-statist losers in denial? It’s almost painful to watch.

For fun, they should be asked if they believe throwing people in jail for weed while they give a free pass to alcohol abuse is doing the Lord’s work…

Bizarro No. 1 on October 25, 2010 at 6:31 AM

For fun, they should be asked if they believe throwing people in jail for weed while they give a free pass to alcohol abuse is doing the Lord’s work…

It ain’t just alcohol. Every time liberals talk about banning tobacco, salt, soda etc etc those fearless weed warriors make 180 turn and all of a sudden it turns out they are totally for liberty, personal responsibility, small government and against nanny-state.

Alexey on October 25, 2010 at 7:02 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on October 25, 2010 at 6:31 AM

Less PETA harrasment than for kicking puppies? Nothing on the SyFy channel? Ida know. . .

Wind Rider on October 25, 2010 at 9:06 AM

Never ceases to amaze me how many so-called conservatives love to bash the libertarians at any given juncture, particularly using the grade-school-level cry of “they’re all stoners hurr hurr”.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 9:33 AM

The combination of inventing rights, entitlement-mindedness and equating freedom with sucking on a bunch of burning weeds hit a nerve. So sue me. I’m also still rather upset at the libertarians for letting the stoners hijack their cause so badly, I used to identify much more with that party.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:24 AM

“Inventing rights” seems reasonable, necessary and consistent with the 9th Amendment when the federal government gets up every morning and adds to its “implied powers”.

dedalus on October 25, 2010 at 9:43 AM

“Inventing rights” seems reasonable, necessary and consistent with the 9th Amendment when the federal government gets up every morning and adds to its “implied powers”.

dedalus on October 25, 2010 at 9:43 AM

I wonder how many here who don’t understand that notion consider themselves tea partiers.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 9:45 AM

We need to leagize it. Our youth are not stupid and lazy enough.

Besides, what better way to keep Obama supporters home in 2012? On that Tuesday morning, tell them it’s actually Monday and they can go back to bed.

kurtzz3 on October 25, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Some people drink to get drunk, but most do not, …
aengus on October 24, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Always a red Herring IMO.

Nobody drinks alcohol for the taste either. Alcohol is a sedative, even one drink causes relaxation.

What is “drunk” anyway? My mother could have one glass of wine and be considered over-the-top! One glass or ten, it’s about the feelings alcohol gives.

BierManVA on October 25, 2010 at 10:54 AM

The only place we ever see the debate is here.

I’m a three legged stool conservative. I don’t smoke pot. Have little respect for the choice that people make to smoke it.

I see no jurisdiction whatsoever in the Federal government’s involvement in the debate at all.

Saltysam on October 25, 2010 at 11:08 AM

I see no jurisdiction whatsoever in the Federal government’s involvement in the debate at all.

Saltysam on October 25, 2010 at 11:08 AM

So we knock this down to the state level?

Sure, why not. At any rate it’ll keep the stoner squad from legalizing pot nationwide at a single stroke.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Telling people how to run their own lives will continue to be an epic fail, as it has always been.

spec_ops_mateo on October 25, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Why make substance abuse worse?

Speakup on October 25, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Aren’t you always complaining about heavy-handed laws and law enforcement?

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Aren’t you always complaining about heavy-handed laws and law enforcement?

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I think you’ve got the wrong poster, and you’re exaggerating to boot.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Nobody drinks alcohol for the taste either.

Of course they do, and California itself is wine country.

What is “drunk” anyway?

Give me a break.

aengus on October 25, 2010 at 11:59 AM

However, that ignores the fact that the police have been finding impaired drivers stoned on pot for decades by observing the impairment, just as they do with drunk drivers.

I don’t find this a convincing argument. It’s much easier to hide being high than it is to hide being drunk, though this is also likely because the latter is a greater impairment than the former. Regardless, I do not believe cops effectively discover stoned drivers. If we’re OK with this, then we’re OK with it. But this also carries over into jobs. Currently, just testing positive is enough, but if it’s legal, can you really be fired for smoking it on your own time?

I’m a little torn on the topic myself but would prefer more decriminalization before full blown legalization.

Esthier on October 25, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Since illegal drugs can be bought with little or no consequences just about anywhere it’s obvious that what we’re doing to prevent drug use is failing miserably. What changes would you suggest to current enforcement policy to effectively stop the illegal drug trade?

Oldnuke on October 25, 2010 at 12:21 PM

No, you’re the one. A couple of your recent comments:

They’ll probably just steal it back, or march in with armed jackboots and take it at gunpoint, so there’s no point in him hanging on to such a technological hot potato that he can’t even reuse without getting in major trouble.

Dark-Star on October 9, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Oh look at that, more destruction of freedom under the guise of “going after kiddy pr0n”. Which in the era of illogical thinking can be interpreted as anything down to – I sh!t you not – anthromophic cartoons. Much longer and stick figures will be considered suspect if they look too young.

Dark-Star on October 7, 2010 at 1:35 PM

How do your comments about the overbearing state, in particular the second one, square with your wishes for that same state to be overbearing on the enforcement of prosecuting people for possession of weed?

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 12:22 PM

What changes would you suggest to current enforcement policy to effectively stop the illegal drug trade?

Oldnuke on October 25, 2010 at 12:21 PM

That’s a tricky one…but one thing I can think of right off the bat is change the focus of law enforcement to target dealers and importers more than end consumers.

Busting street-corner dealers is futile when our border security is badly undermanned and underfunded, and when the production centers are almost never touched. Reduce the pot-packing places to smoking craters and there’ll be a lot less to smuggle. Catch the majority of the stuff being smuggled in and the dealers will have bare cupboards.

Would also do a lot if we could mount an effective “just say no” campaign to teach people that using one’s personal freedom to become a slave to chemicals is a piss-poor idea.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:48 PM

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Bad laws =/= good laws enforced in a bad way.

The first post dealt with a man who was in possession of federal property, which they DO have the right to want back when all is said and done. I was merely stating the fact that they might not be gentle about asking if he didn’t comply.

Also, banning kiddy porn is a good idea, but we’re taking a “Zero Tolerance” policy that makes the law look bad and the enforcers look like oafs. Or shall we give up and legalize that as well?

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Jesus, after five minutes of this thread I need a joint.

teacherman on October 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM

lol,

three PAGES of stoners proving everything I said in the first comment.

with losertarians its always all about their addiction to weed.

American Elephant on October 25, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Nobody drinks alcohol for the taste either.

Of course they do, and California itself is wine country.

What is “drunk” anyway?

Give me a break.

aengus on October 25, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Alcohol was first created for one reason and one only. Have you ever had a non-alcoholic wine? Would you if it tasted the same? I doubt it very much. Same for beer.

The old ‘I drink because I like the taste’ is BS. People drink alcohol to alter their mental state. To a small or large degree is their business.

And drunk, inebriated and buzzed are all subjective words.

BierManVA on October 25, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Also, banning kiddy porn is a good idea, but we’re taking a “Zero Tolerance” policy that makes the law look bad and the enforcers look like oafs. Or shall we give up and legalize that as well?

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Kiddy porn involves sexual exploitation of children. Care to enlighten me as to how growing weed involves naked kids?

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 1:09 PM

with losertarians its always all about their addiction to weed.

American Elephant on October 25, 2010 at 1:00 PM

The weed addiction affects just the user. Turning to government to solve every social ill leads to national indebtedness that affects everyone.

dedalus on October 25, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Actually I think it should be legalized and derugulated to the point that you could find marijuana seeds right next to the tomato seeds at your local home and garden center. Screw letting any local, state or federal government start taxing us some other way.

TrickyDick on October 25, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Jesus, after five minutes of this thread I need a joint.

teacherman on October 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Thank you so much…I needed that laugh very badly.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Kiddy porn involves sexual exploitation of children. Care to enlighten me as to how growing weed involves naked kids?

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Would you care to make a comparison that isn’t a bunch of bull$hit, or shall I address what you meant to say, which is how pot DOES people besides the end user?

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 1:34 PM

And drunk, inebriated and buzzed are all subjective words.

33 A.D. “What is truth?” – Pontius Pilate

2010 A.D. “What is drunk?” – BierManVA

People can drink without becoming inebriated. The idea that having a drink and becoming drunk is a distinction without a difference – because what is intoxication anyway? – is not credible. People look down on “lushes” (just as they look down on illicit drugs users, to the chargrin of many libertarians here) for a reason. Some laws specify that you can’t serve alcohol to an intoxicated person. The intoxicated person cannot get around this law by stating that the word ‘intoxication’ is subjective. Even if they do manage not to slur their words.

aengus on October 25, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:48 PM

That’s a tricky one…but one thing I can think of right off the bat is change the focus of law enforcement to target dealers and importers more than end consumers.

You’re right, it’s tricky. No one to my knowledge has ever been able to effectively enforce prohibition laws without subjecting the populace to draconian measures. Those draconian measures may possibly work in a totalitarian society but will always fail in a society that retains some semblance of it’s freedom. The solution you posit above has been tried in this nation to undeniably miserable ineffective results. The prohibition amendment was entirely focused on the supply end with no consequences to speak of for the end user. It didn’t work then and I see no reason that it will work in this instance. Do you?

Busting street-corner dealers is futile when our border security is badly undermanned and underfunded, and when the production centers are almost never touched.

I agree, the profits in the drug business are just too great. When you’re talking that much money and minimal consequences it’s almost impossible to deter.

Reduce the pot-packing places to smoking craters and there’ll be a lot less to smuggle. Catch the majority of the stuff being smuggled in and the dealers will have bare cupboards.

So are you advocating apocalyptic military strikes on foreign soil, with wholesale destruction and killing of foreign nationals or would you limit the destruction and death to the United States? Exactly how would you change what we’re doing now to intercept the drugs being smuggled in? It seems that we have the entire coast guard and border patrol trying to stop it now and still they’re failing miserably. Would you just throw more money into the pot? What would you change?

Would also do a lot if we could mount an effective “just say no” campaign to teach people that using one’s personal freedom to become a slave to chemicals is a piss-poor idea.

If we could do that I’d agree with you. Would you agree with me that IF we could implement such a plan there would be no need to make any substance illegal?

Oldnuke on October 25, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Would you care to make a comparison that isn’t a bunch of bull$hit, or shall I address what you meant to say, which is how pot DOES people besides the end user?

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Bub, you were the one to bring up legalization of kiddy porn in a legalization of marijuana thread. Address your own comparisons before projecting them as belonging to other people.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Could some one please tell me in Re: Federal Pot Prohibition. Where is the Constitutional Amendment?

MSimon on October 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Every single person I know is a slave to chemicals. Proteins. Carbohydrates. And the durn Vitamin C.

And you know what makes it so pernicious? There are food dealers on nearly every corner in some places. Some blocks are filled with them.

MSimon on October 25, 2010 at 3:28 PM

I want prohibition. I lived through the drug era. Pot is worse than alcohol, because of the cumulative affect on the users. THC takes about 30 days to be excreted and steady users get dumber and dumber. The heavy dope smoking of the hippie era held back a generation. I still bump into the degenerate shells of the ones who could not handle the license of the era

Yes, you can get over pot smoking, but your body lets go a lot slower, and people believe they are thinking normally when they are not

Prohibition does not stop trafficking but prohibition stops the integration of the drug into the general lifestyle. Kiddies understand pot is anti social expression and that is where I want it to stay.

I dont want more drivers on the road with THC bloodstreams, or folk working hi-los in the warehouse, or pilots who smoked last weekend piloting my flight this weekend

There is no moderation in America. Legalize pot and it becomes a weekend smoke in front of the kiddies.

Pot lowers ambitions, makes people passive, suggestible, and slow to respond. To the politically ambitious, pot turns voters into perfect dumb donkies for the state

Why do people read Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ with dread over the Soma drugged future world, but cannot see the connection to pot and the loss of clear thinking and slide into passivity

Here is a typical pot conversation:

Puff, hold breath
“someone at the door”
“you get it”
“no you get it”
“”no you..heh heh” puff puff
“hear the buzzer”
“heh cool”
“whats on tv”
“heh”
“Is it still Monday?”
“heh”
door bell buzzes

entagor on October 25, 2010 at 3:35 PM

I want prohibition.

entagor on October 25, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Awesome. Kiss your smokes and booze goodbye.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Awesome. Kiss your smokes and booze goodbye.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 3:37 PM

A view of MadCon’s OS:

If statement=anti-pot [ Then ]
[ STOP reading ]
[ Select_Random_Stoner_Talkingpoint ]
[ ElseIf statement=pro-pot [ Then ]
[ Select_Random_Praise ] ]
End If

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Bub, you were the one to bring up legalization of kiddy porn in a legalization of marijuana thread.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Actually, that would be you, MadisonConservaTARD, and now you’re trying to pin it on me.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Everything else in the post was typical anti-pot opinion not worth responding to. The commenter said they wanted prohibition. No qualifiers. No caveats. No details. If that’s what you want, be out and loud about it.

…or could it be that when you think about it, you realize that prohibition never works?

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 4:05 PM

We need to leagize it. Our youth are not stupid and lazy enough.

kurtzz3 on October 25, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Yes. Our youth are not stupid enough. They’re too stupid to use a spell check.

Squiggy on October 25, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Actually, that would be you, MadisonConservaTARD, and now you’re trying to pin it on me.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Cute. Insults, followed by a lie. I brought up your previous opinion regarding a man who was put in jail for refusing to provide the government with the password to his computer. In multiple previous comments, you’ve lamented heavy-handed law enforcement. I asked you directly to reconcile that with your opinion on marijuana laws.

You responded by asking if I wanted to legalize kiddy porn. You brought that to the table. Don’t try and lie about what I say, pal. You won’t get away with it.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Would someone explain how something I grow in my backyard, and use in my own home, affects anyone else and should send me to jail?

All you people who keep saying cops have a hard time telling if someone is stoned, and yet it’s as bad as alcohol are really stupid. If a cop can’t tell if someone is impaired, then they’re probably not impaired. Cops go to lots of classes on this – and most of them are not stupid.

Now as for alcohol, if you don’t think you’re “buzzed” from one glass of wine, you’re an idiot. Maybe not so much if you’re a 250lb guy, but a woman likely is at or near .08. If one glass of liquor didn’t give you at least a slight buzz, then there would be no use for it at parties. The woman driver who killed my daughter (in 1995) said she “wasn’t drunk”. Driving under the influence is really, really bad, but to say that means it should be illegal in all cases is totally stupid.

And one more thing – you’re wrong that a cannabis smoker always tries to get as hammered as possible. It’s kind of rare for most people to want to be sloppy wasted (on whatever substance), except for the type of person who already has alcoholic tendencies. And I would most definitely prefer dealing with that person after they smoked a joint, than after they drank a case.

And (for you trolls – you know who you are), no I don’t smoke cannabis. Not for many, many years. You a-holes would want me to go to prison, and my children need me at home. So go pretend to be conservatives somewhere else. You’re stinking up the place.

Squiggy on October 25, 2010 at 4:20 PM

We have to save the families by destroying them.

The perfect Government project. It makes everything worse:

Demographics

MSimon on October 25, 2010 at 4:48 PM

The revenues will be nowhere near 200 million annually, that is nonsense. Illegal drug sales will still be going on, illegal pot use will still be prosecuted in situations of underage users and those driving impaired. Usage of pot will increase with the inherent loss in productivity. Legalization may be the right thing to do, but the Libertarian case for selling it is nonsense across the board.

We have legal alcohol and there are enormous social costs associated with it. We shouldn’t have prohibition again, but lets not pretend all of the problems related to drug use go away when you make them legal.

echosyst on October 25, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Help
Eliminate
Makework
Policing

profitsbeard on October 25, 2010 at 5:37 PM

We shouldn’t have prohibition again, but lets not pretend all of the problems related to drug use go away when you make them legal.

Ah. But the crime problem will be greatly diminished. Which is about as good as you can get.

BTW illegal drugs are easier for kids to get than legal beer. I don’t see how a significant long term upsurge is possible. Every one who wants the stuff can get it.

MSimon on October 25, 2010 at 6:10 PM

American Elephant on October 24, 2010 at 3:42 PM

I read those articles and they all say that there was no formal finding for causation. No proof that marijuana caused severe mental disorders and that it is just as likely that the disorder was present before and marijuana use compounded that. The medpage article gives its criteria for psychosis as:

Investigators compared participants’ history of cannabis use with three psychosis-related outcomes: nonaffective psychosis, hallucinations (assessed by the Computerized International Diagnostic Interview), and the Peters et al Delusions Inventory (PDI) score (Schizophr Bull 2004; 30: 1005-1022).

Goes on

The authors found that 65 participants met criteria for a diagnosis of nonaffective psychosis, and 233 reported at least one hallucination-related incident.

What is a hallucination- experiencing something without a stimulus present. To which I ask, how many people have heard someone call their name only to find out no one called them?

This is out of 3,800 participants. Of the 65 that did have something wrong with them, it was not clear if their parents also suffered from psychological disorders. Which should have been noted since 30% of the respondents had a parent with a mental disorder.

In short there is no conclusive evidence that marijuana use leads to psychological problems. If that were the case then a LARGE portion of society would have been hospitalized by now. How much acid was dropped in the 60s? And as much as I hate hippies, I don’t think they are psychotic. Most of the hippies are very successful business people and employed in demanding professions.

My other problem with a lot of these studies is that they typically focus on high school/college age students. Most drug experimentation happens during this time and tapers off as people get older.

xax on October 25, 2010 at 9:10 PM

And what’s this claptrap about how alcohol doesn’t alter your state of consciousness like a joint will? Of course one beer won’t do it, but take a couple shots of 100 proof vodka, or better yet, moonshine and talk to me about altered states of consciousness. The WHOLE point of drugs is to alter your consciousness; even a couple of beers will do that.

Get some guys together, with beer and football then watch them all zone out, munching on pizza like potheads on a couch zoned out to Spongebob. (That is the only way that show can make sense.)

xax on October 25, 2010 at 9:24 PM

No proof that marijuana caused severe mental disorders and that it is just as likely that the disorder was present before and marijuana use compounded that.

Mr Elephants delusion is even more severe than you think. If pot use compounds existing mental problems it’s still a causation. Yet scientists and authors of the article are not blind propagandists so they directly state that

The researchers said they couldn’t prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis, a category of several disorders with schizophrenia being the most commonly known.

There could be something else about marijuana users, “like their tendency to use other drugs or certain personality traits, that could be causing the psychoses,” Zammit said.

In other words they don’t know if cannabis use increases the risk of developing/compounding mental disorder or it’s just that those with mental disorders (or predisposition to them) are more inclined to use cannabis.

It’s a common sense that those with mental problems are more likely to consume psychoactive drugs in an attempt to relieve their condition. Thus those with with mental issues will more frequently be cannabis users, and cannabis users will more frequently have mental issues.

Alexey on October 26, 2010 at 8:10 AM

And what’s this claptrap about how alcohol doesn’t alter your state of consciousness like a joint will? Of course one beer won’t do it, but take a couple shots of 100 proof vodka, or better yet, moonshine

“Stop lying about my record!” – Bob Dole

Stop obfuscating. The point you’re making – that “one beer won’t do it” – was my original point. Alcohol is not the exclusive preserve of drunkards and people can drink up to, and without quite reaching, the state known as drunkenness (which some now dispute even exists, due to its subjectiveness). Earlier we had people saying that there’s no difference between having a beer and getting drunk (not true). We had people using “buzzed” and “inebriated” as synonms. Aside from the fact that “buzzed” is a slang word that means something like “tipsy” whereas “inebriated” clearly means “drunk”.

aengus on October 26, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3