Legalization of Marijuana

[Tesla]

While the notion that each individual can make their own choices without affecting anyone is a nice theory, it is impractical in today’s interconnected world.

Hear that guys? Making your own choices about what you put in your body isn't practical.

 

[Ibonibo]

Fact is that with drugs (weed, cocaine) criminal activity is involved due to the fact that is illegal in the greater part of the world.

Coffee and salt can be bad for yourself too. Last year I suffered from kidney stones. So I know how it feels. But there is no crime involved in salt.

I am concerced about the crime that is involved with drugs. Less the usage itself.

yeah, I understand that for the residents on the border it is not amusinghaving all the drug tourist, and though I only am 2 hours away from Mass, I only was once there for drug consumation.

My stating was more with the last page I think.

Though as I understand it, since the weedpass (only for residents) has passed into action, it seems illegal vendors are poping up like shrooms (pun intended)? And thus bigger quanities are passed through borders and not only weed.

 

[MarcoM]

yeah, I understand that for the residents on the border it is not amusinghaving all the drug tourist, and though I only am 2 hours away from Mass, I only was once there for drug consumation.

My stating was more with the last page I think.

Though as I understand it, since the weedpass (only for residents) has passed into action, it seems illegal vendors are poping up like shrooms (pun intended)? And thus bigger quanities are passed through borders and not only weed.

That is what they say, I have not yet experienced that myself. Probably because I do not look like a potential customer.

Even the police has admitted that illegal sellers popped up. The beauty is that they are illegal and are actively hunted.

 

[USARMYCOMBATVET]

Hear that guys? Making your own choices about what you put in your body isn't practical.

You might want to read this section also:
“Through drug laws Congress is attempting to
5 legislate morality.”
page 11
• John Adams, who helped draft the Constitution and later became our second president,
declared, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate to govern of any other.” This means that any and all just laws must be based on
moral considerations. Our elected representatives are therefore bound to legislate morality.
• Morality is about right and wrong, and that’s what laws put into legal form. All laws legislate
morality (even speed limits imply a moral moral judgement). Everyone in politics —
conservatives, libertarians and liberals — is trying in some degree to legislate morality. The
complaint then, is not whether or not Congress is attempting to legislate morality, but whose
morality is Congress attempting to legislate?
• The expectation that Congress will make these moral judgments comes from the Constitution,
which decreed that a majority of the citizens, through the representatives elected to do our
bidding, were given the right, the duty and responsibility, to make laws that would ensure
domestic tranquility, defend our borders, and promote a safe and wholesome environment
for us all. These are all moral judgments.
• The Constitution also lays out the structure by which these moral judgments will be made.
The principal of majority rule, the balance of power between the president, the; judiciary;
and the Congress, and even the bi-cameral structure of Congress all work to provide an
effective mechanism to legislate morality that is consistent with the desires—and therefore
we must assume the morals—of a majority of Americans.

This document applies only to US citizens(to keep this in context).

 

[Danoff]

The Constitution also lays out the structure by which these moral judgments will be made.
The principal of majority rule, the balance of power between the president, the; judiciary;
and the Congress, and even the bi-cameral structure of Congress all work to provide an
effective mechanism to legislate morality that is consistent with the desires—and therefore
we must assume the morals—of a majority of Americans.

Whoever wrote this article you keep quoting is shockingly uninformed and confused about morality, the constitution, and the United States. Not that I should be surprised, but I still get taken off guard by people who don't understand their own government.

The united states is not a democracy, it's a constitutionally limited representative republic. The constitution doesn't exist to establish majority rule, it exists to establish representation and PREVENT majority rule. The bill of rights (arguably the most important part) exists precisely to carve out exactly what our representatives have control over and what they do not have control over. Human rights cannot be trampled just because a plurality of citizens think it should be (see my signature).

So explain to me how pointing a gun at someone for putting a substance that they freely chose into their body is somehow consistent with the human rights that are the cornerstone of our constitutionally limited representative republic.

 

[USARMYCOMBATVET]

Whoever wrote this article you keep quoting is shockingly uninformed and confused about morality, the constitution, and the United States. Not that I should be surprised, but I still get taken off guard by people who don't understand their own government.

The united states is not a democracy, it's a constitutionally limited representative republic. The constitution doesn't exist to establish majority rule, it exists to establish representation and PREVENT majority rule. The bill of rights (arguably the most important part) exists precisely to carve out exactly what our representatives have control over and what they do not have control over. Human rights cannot be trampled just because a plurality of citizens think it should be (see my signature).

So explain to me how pointing a gun at someone for putting a substance that they freely chose into their body is somehow consistent with the human rights that are the cornerstone of our constitutionally limited representative republic.

I don't understand my own government, eh? Drugs are a human right. Majority rule seems to be "shockingly" in favor of legalization. However, you seem to think this validates it. Hypocritic if you ask me. Also, since you seem to talk down to EVERY reply I make with an elitist attitude you're ignored. Have fun calling the DEA "shockingly uninformed and confused about morality, the constitution, and the United States." The problem with this "have an open mind" discourse which seems so prevelant in today's society is the very people who parade it around want others to be of the "same mind." Hypocritical yet again.

 

[USARMYCOMBATVET]

http://www.justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position.pdf

 

[FoolKiller]

If organizatons can make money out of it, they will do that and that will cause problems.

I fail to see the problem. That is how everything works.

Yes however if you have cancer it isn't your fault (most of the time.)

Must be why my doctor asks if I have a family history of cancer.

So ban everything? And like in Demolition Man ban salt, fat, .... everything is bad if consumed in unhealthy portions. You can develop psycological illness from too much coffee, like agoraphobia.

The US is working on it.

But there is no crime involved in salt.

Yet. And don't forget the new soda rules in New York.

Feel free to refute any of these claims with evidence:
Myth #1 The enforcement of drug laws contributes to the
violence along the southwest border page 2

Fast and Furious? And if it were legal what would all the fighting be about?

Myth #2 Legalizing and taxing marijuana will help local economies page 4

They have a point here. Government involvement never helps anything.

Myth #3 Federal drug laws infringe on states rights page 6

10th Amendment

Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Myth #4 Prohibition didn’t work in the 20’s, and it won’t work now page 9

Doesn't bringing up Prohibition kind of disprove "Myth" 1? You know, illegal product surrounded by violent crime. Becomes legal, violence dies off.

Myth #5 Congress is attempting to legislate morality page 11

Soon as someone explains why my choices is their business... Is it my health? That's bad on its own. Maybe they should have legislated I had been aborted?

I don't understand my own government, eh? Drugs are a human right. Majority rule seems to be "shockingly" in favor of legalization. However, you seem to think this validates it. Hypocritic if you ask me.

I think you read his post incorrectly.

But to quote Ben Franklin, "A republic, if you can keep it.". I guess the DEA doesn't believe we can keep it. Also, I find it funny that these laws are backed by politicians who wouldn't be in their job if a cop walked in at the right time. Speaking of hypocrites.

Also, since you seem to talk down to EVERY reply I make with an elitist attitude you're ignored.

Because you didn't start off acting conceited about your own opinion.

Have fun calling the DEA "shockingly uninformed and confused about morality, the constitution, and the United States."

This is the same agency that benefits from a growing drug war, yes? More restrictions = more money for them?

Sounds legit.

 

[Danoff]

I don't understand my own government, eh?

I believe I was responding to an article you posted. If you agree with the article that the US drug laws are rightly based on majority rule, no you do not understand your government.

Drugs are a human right.

Yes - the freedom to take them. (Not to be confused with some sort of right to be given drugs)

Majority rule seems to be "shockingly" in favor of legalization. However, you seem to think this validates it.

Please post an example of anywhere that I think majority rule validates any law. Feel free to look in ANY thread on the forum at any time in the decade that I've been coming to GTPlanet.

Hypocritic if you ask me.

Yes it would be if it were true.

Also, since you seem to talk down to EVERY reply I make with an elitist attitude you're ignored.

One post is "every" reply? Feel free to ignore me.

Have fun calling the DEA "shockingly uninformed and confused about morality, the constitution, and the United States."

No problem. The DEA is actually an unconstitutional agency. I know you don't want to hear this, but the DEA effectively makes law by establishing controlled substance regulations. DEA officials that make this law are not elected officials, and according to the constitution, congress does not have the authority to delegate lawmaking ability to non-elected officials. No regulatory agencies are constitutional. This is the subject of the first day of any constitutional law class you might take from a reputable university (I learned this when my wife took constitutional law from UCLA law school). This is widely acknowledged to be true by legal scholars and professors.

Now, tell me why I should think that the DEA understands the constitution or American government?

The problem with this "have an open mind" discourse which seems so prevelant in today's society is the very people who parade it around want others to be of the "same mind."

I don't want you to have an open mind. I want you to listen to what I'm saying, understand it, and tell me why you think I'm wrong or accept it as true. That's what the opinions forum is all about.

Hypocritical yet again.

Yet again it would be if it were true.

 

[MarcoM]

I fail to see the problem. That is how everything works.

So in a way you agree with criminals making money. Nice.

 

[Danoff]

So in a way you agree with criminals making money. Nice.

In this case, the criminal act is preventing the sale and use of Marijuana. The US government is violating the rights of all individuals it prosecutes for marijuana, and the cops that enforce these laws are committing a criminal act.

 

[MarcoM]

Reality check, I am out of here. Crazy stuff.

 

[Dennisch]

Reality check, I am out of here. Crazy stuff.

And with that bombshell, I'll smoke one on behave of every one in this thread, whether you like it or not.

 

[Maccer_42]

To that ^

It's crazy a plant that grows naturally can be so controversial world wide, even more crazy that there is still so much misinformation spread about it to this day. It will be a wonderfull day when everyone realises that this plant has many usefull and helpfull abilities to it besides just getting you "high".

Saw this video recently, it may have already been posted in here if it has i'm sorry. But the responses this DEA Chief gives are just priceless



I realy can't understand why anyone would want marijuana to still be classed as an illegal drug.

 

[Ibonibo]

^Oh my God, that is hillarious.

How do people get those jobs in the first place??

You know that the UK (already wrote it somewhere here ) fired their chief drug consultant for the goverment because he said bets on horse races are more addictive than pot. That is a nono apparently in the UK. so they fired him. (saw it on a BBC documentary)

 

[FoolKiller]

So in a way you agree with criminals making money. Nice.

You didn't specify criminal organizations. I was thinking more like RJ Reynolds. But I have no problem with a guy growing it in his basement and selling it for money.

Let's be honest here, it is only a crime because it was illegal.

It's like speed limits. Two years ago 70mph was a crime on the interstates in Kentucky. Now it is not. Did the rightness of driving at 70mph change? No.

Prohibition was the same. One day alcohol was legal. Then it wasn't. Then it was again. What about alcohol changed to make it a crime or not? Are fermented sugars schizophrenic?

See, crime is arbitrary. The DEA pages previously posted attempted to make current legalization efforts look bad by saying those running marijuana places are secretly breaking laws. They don't point out they are legal by their local law but still illegal by federal law. In that case every legalization attempt is also criminal. But is it bad?

Speaking of prohibition; anyone ever wonder why alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment but no other substances made illegal since have? Think about what Danoff said about the Constitutionality of the DEA and drug regulations and what changed in the last 100 years. It wasn't the Constitution.

 

[MarcoM]

You didn't specify criminal organizations. I was thinking more like RJ Reynolds. But I have no problem with a guy growing it in his basement and selling it for money.

Let's be honest here, it is only a crime because it was illegal.

You know what, I really don't care if people enjoy a drug from time to time. The thing is that in living close the Belgium border and within 500 meters of 2 coffeeshops in my town I have seen many instances where drug tourists cause trouble. There is even a school for young kids (4-12) at 50 meters from the coffee shops.

Before the introduction of the weedpass (a pass that only allows Dutch members to buy drugs) there was many traffic from drug tourists. It made the area quite hostile from time to time. Cars speeding like crazy through limited 30 km/s streets. And a lot of polution and loud noise in the area of the coffee shops. Not a place where you would let your kids walk alone to school even it is soo close.

People who shut their eyes for the problems have a quite a different view on the reality than many people in my area have.

 

[FoolKiller]

How would your area be different if it were legal in your entire country, or even every western country? Drug tourists only exist because it is illegal in their native land.

You sound like the guys around here in dry counties who don't want to allow alcohol sales because they see how many drunk drivers there are coming in from the city bars. They'd be at home, or close to home, drinking if they were allowed to.

 

[W3H5]

Here's a question- If it was legal, how many of us would choose to try meth? I'm guessing very few.

I would. The only reason I haven't tried it is because I've never had access or opportunity.

Fact is that with drugs (weed, cocaine) criminal activity is involved due to the fact that is illegal in the greater part of the world.

Not always. I spent almost a decade as a stoner and my whole community was weed related. Many of my friends supplied us just so they could smoke the profits. None of us ever caused trouble because of weed.

Cocaine on the other hand is different where I'm from. Lots of crime is related to coke users and it's a big problem in communities.

I used to have a theory, one of conspiracy to tell the truth:

The governments of first world nations buy the weed using external, covert agents. That is then shipped to our countries from third world nations where it is grown.

Upon arrival it is sold en mass to the top level distributors and so on until it reaches the street. The police then go about doing their raids and making arrests which results the weed being confiscated (I've had cautions and confiscations many times) where it ends up in a police depot.

The weed is then taken back by the government only to be redistributed making them twice the money.


/stoner thoughts.

 

[MarcoM]

How would your area be different if it were legal in your entire country, or even every western country? Drug tourists only exist because it is illegal in their native land.

You sound like the guys around here in dry counties who don't want to allow alcohol sales because they see how many drunk drivers there are coming in from the city bars. They'd be at home, or close to home, drinking if they were allowed to.

It is legal in my country, but not in the countries I live very close too. That is the problem. But as I said, it is less a problem with the introduction of the weed pass.

Thank you for the comment how you think about me. Assumptions FTW.

And with that bombshell, I'll smoke one on behave of every one in this thread, whether you like it or not.

And that shows the attitude of the people in our free country: I am entitled to use drug because I am entitled to do so.

I am entitled to do everything even if I hinder others while doing so.

Who cares about others people lives anyway, as log as I can do whatever I am entitled to do I can do it and will do it.

 

[Dennisch]

I am entitled to do everything even if I hinder others while doing so.

Who cares about others people lives anyway, as log as I can do whatever I am entitled to do I can do it and will do it.

So, you get bothered by me smoking the stuff?

But you right with the second part, I don't give a crap about other people, but that is for another thread.

All the problems you guys have at the border are non existent over here. That is why we don't need the wiet-pas. As I said before, I have lived for 7 years right next to a coffee shop, and another just 200 meters away. Never ever were there any problems. Only with drunk people. Let's ban alcohol.

 

[MarcoM]

So, you get bothered by me smoking the stuff?

But you right with the second part, I don't give a crap about other people, but that is for another thread.

All the problems you guys have at the border are non existent over here. That is why we don't need the wiet-pas. As I said before, I have lived for 7 years right next to a coffee shop, and another just 200 meters away. Never ever were there any problems. Only with drunk people. Let's ban alcohol.

No, I do not have a problem with you enjoying your smoke. But I do have a problem with closing your eyes when you say that it is not a problem in your town and thus it doesn't bother you. That is easy and worrying.

Just closing your eyes for the problems in cities in the border earas is a bit sad attitude towards society.

 

[Dennisch]

No, I do not have a problem with you enjoying your smoke. But I do have a problem with closing your eyes when you say that it is not a problem in your town and thus it doesn't bother you. That is easy and worrying.

Just closing your eyes for the problems in cities in the border earas is a bit sad attitude towards society.

There is no problem in my town. We have 9 coffeeshops. 9. There is only 1 close to a high school, and the age to get into that shop is 21, because kids tried to get in all the time.

But the problems you have aren't here. They just aren't. So I don't have to close my eyes for that. And the problems at the border, if you say so, I believe you. But I can't do anything about it, nor the coffeeshops in my town.

But I can tell you 1 thing. You will see a rise in street dealers, even more racing cars, just not in the street where the shop is. So the problems just shift to another place.

And I rather see my money go to the coffeeshop owner who works and pays for his shop, rather than some 20 year old lowlife street dealer who will buy a BMW to race through your town.

 

[MarcoM]

Since the introduction of the weed pass, the racing cars are no longer an issue. I agree with you that the street dealers might be a problem eventually. But the police will take countermeasures.

I really hope that Belgium and France will legalize it. Then those who live in the border areas can live without the hassle.

Drugs runners in the border area in the Netherlands:





These people risk their own live and that of others too. To hell with 'm.

 

[Keef]

These people risk their own live and that of others too. To hell with 'm.

If it wasn't illegal they wouldn't have to risk their lives and those of others running from the cops. THey could just kinda cruise on over the the customer's plane and do their business peacefully like a pizza delivery guy.

Seems to me that that law is causing the problem, not the people. The people will always do what they want and the law appears to be interfereing with that natural fact.

 

[Froudeybrand]

To the OP

Yes & No.

This is why it should be legal as it will kill a lot of drug dealers off the street the supply and demand will be in tobacco shops and designated retailers. Thus having taxes thrust upon it which in theory would help the governments get surplus to put towards serious items. But in saying this to work it would have to HEAVILY watched to stop road deaths more regulated then the alcohol industry for that reason.

 

[MarcoM]

I knew that comment would come. So you actually blame all the others instead of the felonies?

It's like with rape. Women probably deserve that too. It's the law that make people act like they do.

Keef, you can't be serious there.

 

[Ibonibo]

If it wasn't illegal they wouldn't have to risk their lives and those of others running from the cops. THey could just kinda cruise on over the the customer's plane and do their business peacefully like a pizza delivery guy.

Seems to me that that law is causing the problem, not the people. The people will always do what they want and the law appears to be interfereing with that natural fact.

Hmmm?

So street racing should be legal.???

Same thing with that logic.
Or slapping prostitutes,....

If people were allowed to do what they want, I wouldn't want to live at that place, because a majority of people is more than stupid

Marco, I get your point and your right, infact German border patrol is so present, that big trafficers don't go to NL anymore, they simply grow it underground in Germany or Poland.

And not to be racist, but it's always (90%) the same ethnic group in those vids and on police bulletins

 

[MarcoM]

Hmmm?

So street racing should be legal.???

Same thing with that logic.
Or slapping prostitutes,....

If people were allowed to do what they want, I wouldn't want to live at that place, because a majority of people is more than stupid

Marco, I get your point and your right, infact German border patrol is so present, that big trafficers don't go to NL anymore, they simply grow it underground in Germany or Poland.

And not to be racist, but it's always (90%) the same ethnic group in those vids and on police bulletins

Finally somebody understands my point. I am really NOT against smoking weed. It's just fact that in the border regions there is a lot of disrespect for normal society by the drugs tourist.

Growing it in your own country (legally or illegally) is the best solution.

Hmmm?
And not to be racist, but it's always (90%) the same ethnic group in those vids and on police bulletins

facts are facts

 

[daft biker]

Seems to me that that law is causing the problem, not the people. The people will always do what they want and the law appears to be interfereing with that natural fact.

I'm inclined to agree with that. I don't think it's worth the expense of policing beyond making sure the money doesn't go towards other organised crime (such as people trafficking) and I believe the best way of doing that is to make sure the money goes straight back into the economy once the tax man has had his cut.