Bong Hits For Jesus

Pat Robertson favors a dramatic downsizing of our marijuana laws as our nation casts about for an exit strategy in the war on drugs. AllahPundit has lots, including this:

Exit question: Does this create some political space for “true conservatives” to be more adventurous in opposing marijuana laws? Palin showed a little flair on that point a few months ago but it’s disappeared among the field since then (except, of course, for libertarian Gary Johnson). If she brings it back, it could spark interest among independents, and now that she has Robertson as cover on her right flank, the damage among social cons should be minimal.

Yes, and I would pay extra to see Sarah take the lead on marijuana decriminalization just to see the reaction from the Usual Suspects in the media (hmm, how many would think they were having an acid flashback?  Andrea Mitchell for sure...). 

Unfortunately, I don't know how much of a national debate we can have - if Obama opens his mouth everyone will be throwing his pot-smoking youth in his face and positions will re-freeze.  As with the war in Afghanistan, Obama needs to continue the war on drugs to display his toughness.  Nixon was able to go to China; Obama won't be able to go anywhere on this.  Which is a shame.

THEN AGAIN:  OK, maybe Obama could tiptoe into the debate by hding behind Sarah.  As I said, I would pay extra...

Comments

[daddy]

Pat Robertson, errrrr Dave's not here man.

[Jack is Back!]

Hey, why not? Now that we have passed DADT, unfettered illegal immigration, 13 trillion in debt and have government run healthcare, we are just one tiny step from looking more like The Netherlands. Look what decriminalized pot got them.

[Captain Hate]

So is that mewling mince-meat AllahPuke sucking up to Palin now? Won't that upset Mega?

[Donald]

apples and oranges Jack.

There should be no illegal drugs and there should be no restrictions on their use. Period.

There is nothing worse than the government (Federal, state, local) running around with military and para-military equipment terrorizing and imprisoning citizens (And aliens!). Nothing.

[JadedByPolitcs]

This Country that the left is creating is not looking like America. Legalizing drugs? yeah because its not like pot is the only drug kids use once smoked. It is just the stepping stone to addiction. I cannot believe we are discussing legalization. I certainly think there is room for discussion on how to deal with those who are in possession of small amounts but not legalizing it.

[Terry Gain]

Decriminalizing pot will increase its use. America doesn't need more potheads. There's a reason why they call it dope. I'd like to see Sarah lead the way to make running cool and smoking pot uncool.

[Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)]

Oh stop mincing words Capn'.

[Jack is Back!]

Donald, I am more libertarian then you think when it comes to legalization of drugs.

My point is that we are already on the most slick of slippery slopes with what I categorized as the Euro-wimping of our society and its exceptionalism.

All of the above, plus Holder's unrecognition of Islamic terrorism is going to lead to adoptation of sharia law. That and the reapportionment of California, Arizona and New Mexico to the nativist chicanos should round out the circle of capitulation.

[Cecil Turner]

"Bong hits for Jesus" was more of a free speech issue than a call for decriminization. But other than that, I'm all down with this. In particular, the enforcement of these laws leads to some really bad behavior on the part of our more zealous LEOs. And of course, the mere fact of illegality creates a larger profit margin for some of the worst of criminals. That said, if it can't win a referendum in Callyforneeya, what chance . . .

[Chubby]

Jane, I don't think Cap will be baking any "mincewords pie" this season, and if he does, I don't want any :)

[Janet]

I agree with Jadedbypolitics & Terry Gain.
I guess we just don't give a damn about the next generation.
♪ ♫
Where have all the grownups gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the grownups gone?
Long time ago.

[Ric Locke]

I have to laugh at "conservatives" over this one.

If you want the Drug War you want the nannystate, and all the wailing about how bad legalization would make it reinforces that. Prohibition (of any kind) requires a massive, expensive, intrusive Government to enforce it. You got what you wanted, and are now winging that somebody else has control of it and is using it for things you didn't think of. My heart bleeds green swamp water for you.

[Porchlight]

I find that most conservatives in favor of legalizing drugs do not have children at or below high risk age for drug use.

Prohibition (of any kind) requires a massive, expensive, intrusive Government to enforce it.

So do legalized drugs. Insane regulation and enforcement is needed to guarantee quality, tax sales and prevent a black market. And then you have the inevitable government intervention to support the addicts - methadone clinics, government-provided rehab therapy, the works. All provided at taxpayer expense.

Not to mention the attendant crime. (And please don't trot out the argument that usage wouldn't go up after legalization. Conservatives ought to understand that when an previously illegal/taboo activity is legalized and destigmatized and the price of entry is reduced, usage goes UP, not down.) Police aren't just busy in high-drug-use areas because they're busting people for selling and possession.

I'll take the Drug War, thanks.

[Captain Hate]

I have to laugh at "conservatives" over this one.

Keep fucking that chicken, Ricky; and thanks for supporting the drug cartels, assbreath.

[Donald]

Ms. Porch,

I say repeal all drug laws, and use the extra prison space for serious, legitimate crimes. If you mug grandma for dope, how's about several frickin years, instead of a shortened stay?

The drug war spits on the idea of personal liberty and responsiblity.

I guess the funding of government trumps the entire concept.

[Donald]

Cause, that's what it's all about.

[Porchlight]

I say repeal all drug laws, and use the extra prison space for serious, legitimate crimes.

I don't think it solves any problems. You'll have just as many people in prison for mugging grandma as you did for possession before. Plus more burglary and street crime of all stripes. At least in the current system, fewer grandmas get mugged, fewer properties are broken into, fewer vehicles are stolen, etc.

Also, increase in those crimes triggers heightened government presence and spending, whether in the form of larger, more powerful police departments, or in the government spending I outlined above.

Either that or the police can just not bother investigating burglaries (they barely do now) or looking for stolen cars (again, they barely do now).

Also, drug addiction produces irrational behavior, so assuming people will act rationally (in the face of scary prison sentences) produces bad prognostication imho.

You get a nanny state either way, but in the current system, citizens and property are better protected, which imho is a more legitimate role of government than the role of ensuring a legal drug market along with fair and just medical treatment for addicts. Again imho.

[Murgatroyd]

Sign my petition for an Alcohol-Free America amendment?

This time, we can make it work! Last time, the right people weren't in charge.

[Chubby]

((I guess the funding of government trumps the entire concept.))

Socialist states that have total control over people's lives is a bad thing. But you sound just as extreme on the opposite side of the dilemma.

[Chubby]

Comparing the consumption of alcohol to getting high on weed is a false comparison. A lot of people drink moderately and stop before getting intoxicated to the point of dangerous non functionality. But getting high on weed, is a whole different thing; the whole point to get the full high, or its a waste of time. At least with booze it's clear when someone is stinko, when someone is stoned it's less detectable, but a lot more dangerous. Everyone from cab drivers to airline pilots would have to be carefull monitored.

[JOMer Bomber]

"I have to laugh at "conservatives" over this one."

Ric;

Glad to see your consistency as 'libertarian/Classical Liberal'

Most here cherry-pick their opinions.

'Cafeteria Conservatives'

[LouP]

So-called Libertarians with these arguments remind me too much of that mantra of the 60s hippies: if it feels good, just do it!

And so the rationalization will continue unabated: the logical extension of the argument is to de-criminalize burglary, murder, rape, etc., etc. That will also lower government cost - so the rationalization will go.

But Donald knows the difference between "serious" crime and not so serious. I.e., if he's into it, then it's not serious. Isn't that it?

From my very prejudiced perspective, all these dope and pot heads have the blood of the drug wars south of the border on their hands - just because they have rationalized their favorite recreation.

[Ric Locke]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We absolutely must have door-breakers, random search and seizure, and legions of stukachniy. It's for the children!

This country got along fine for a century with no restrictions. The human race in general managed for millenia.

The transition might be rough, yes, but less so than you imagine. If you think the prohibition is effective you are fooling yourself. Drugs are freely available to anyone who wants them. They're fools, yes, but trying to protect fools from their folly is futile and itself foolish.

But that's all right. I'll just keep chuckling when you rage at Michelle Obama over child nutrition. After all, those public-spirited doorbreakers will only be used for Good.

Regards,
Ric

[Cecil Turner]

This country got along fine for a century with no restrictions.

Not sure what century you're talking about, but this claim is ahistorical.

[Czar of Control]

It's ok to make it legal now,as the Cartels are sufficiently funded.

Organized crime was fully funded by the time Prohibition ended. They were capitalized so well that they built Las Vegas and numerous shell businesses for their illegal activities.

But the idiots who think the War on Drugs
should be continued despite it's failure, are loathe to admit their stupidity, and therefore argue for the continued stalemate costs and it's disregard for liberty.

[Czar of Control]

This country got along fine for a century with no restrictions.

Not sure what century you're talking about, but this claim is ahistorical.

Cecil is correct. Marijuana has been around and used for THOUSANDS OF YEARS
BEFORE IT WAS MADE ILLEGAL.

1906 Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, regulating the labelling of products containing Alcohol, Opiates, Cocaine, and Cannabis, among others. The law went into effect Jan 1, 1907 4 [Details]

[Ric Locke]

The issue is not whether drugs are good for you. They aren't, full stop.

The issue is whether or not the State should forcibly intervene on the grounds of what's good for you. Having come down forcibly on the "yes" side of that question, you deserve only jeers when you bitch that somebody else's definition of "good for you" impacts your life.

Regards,
Ric

[Chubby]

Public drunkenness was a huge problem when the temperence movement started. The winos that today hang out in parks and under bridges, were back then on every street corner. If there were "saloons" and drunks hollering and yelling on every street corner today, I believe "the people" would want that changed today just as they did then. Maybe prohibition helped bring that change and the laws that control alcohol consumption.

[MayBee]

When people say "repeal all drug laws", do they mean the laws for oxycontin and vioxx, too?

[Chubby]

((The issue is whether or not the State should forcibly intervene on the grounds of what's good for you. Having come down forcibly on the "yes" side of that question, you deserve only jeers when you bitch that somebody else's definition of "good for you" impacts your life.))

Your agruments only works if you don't consider "nuance" and compare apples to oranges. If someone is high and perhaps driving a cab, that has an effect on my safety. A tubby cab driver, not so much.

[Czar of Control]

Driving intoxicated whether on booze or pot is still going to be illegal.

Talk about apples and oranges. WHEW !

[LouP]

So the war on drugs is a complete failure (by-and-large, I agree, but it's another subject as to "why"). By that argument the war on murder, burgarly, rape, speeding, running red lights, drunk driving, etc., has also failed. That doesn't mean that I will ever agree to abandoning the "war."

[Roland]

The California initiative to legalize pot failed because it was written so much in favor of potheads. Employers would have had difficulty booting potheads, and the legal system would have had difficulty proving intoxication while driving or flying a plane, etc. That was just plain nuts.

If it had been a rationally designed initiative, creating effective enforcement against pothead driving and laying out powerful protections for employers against being second guessed for drug testing and booting potheads, it would have won in a landslide.

My own view is we should either fight the drug war like it is a war (that means executing the traitors giving the enemy money) or we should give it up.

One or the other. Right now. This middle road garbage in the war on drugs is just plain evil. The worst of both worlds. It's the same kind of vile, touchie-feelie, irresponsible thinking that drives our suicidal immigration policy and our crackpot nation building lunacy.

[Cecil Turner]

Having come down forcibly on the "yes" side of that question . . .

Did you read anything of the above?

THOUSANDS OF YEARS
BEFORE IT WAS MADE ILLEGAL.

Riight. Try to find a century in which the US didn't pass laws against various forms of drug use. (And those don't even go into the ones in the Colonial era which mandated church attendance, forbade alcohol sales on Sunday, outlawed idleness and gossip and so on.)

Yeah, the restrictions varied (primarily by which ones were popular/openly abused), but the idea that the nanny state deciding what's good for you is a recent development is simply not on.

[Captain Hate]

The issue is whether or not the State should forcibly intervene on the grounds of what's good for you. Having come down forcibly on the "yes" side of that question, you deserve only jeers when you bitch that somebody else's definition of "good for you" impacts your life.

I understand this argument and believe you're arguing in good faith (unlike at least one addled idiot on your side) but others that have made this claim have actively been cheering for the breakdown of western society. Even if you eliminated the war on drugs we're still hip deep in nanny statisms that deal with things less physically harmful than drugs. Like LouP stated, just because we're a nation full of addicts doesn't mean the war should be terminated.

[Cecil Turner]

Doesn't matter. As TM stated in the opening (and a couple of us opined above), the problem is that legalization has insufficient public support.

Just as DADT repeal was inevitable, this is not going to happen any time soon.

[Chubby]

((Driving intoxicated whether on booze or pot is still going to be illegal.

Talk about apples and oranges. WHEW !))

And how will the laws against pot smokers driving on the job be enforced? a blood test before every shift? Professional drivers do not have to have a blood test for booze before they go on the road because alcoholic intoxication is much easier to detect. Is there such a thing as a pot breathalizer? No there is not. Booze and pot are apples and oranges.

[Ric Locke]

LouP, the distinction is between deterrence and prevention.

Laws that deter are somewhat effective, provided that the populace trusts the police to be reasonably efficient and even-handed. If a crime has been committed, and the police find and punish the criminal, that works sometimes.

Preventive laws interfere before any crime has been committed. They thus require intrusion without any legitimate reason for doing so. And, since the precursors to crime that are the focus of prevention are widely distributed, that intervention is largely ineffective. You can't stop all the drunk drivers without inspecting every driver at every point in his or her life, and not only is it impossible to employ enough police for that, you then run into the problem of policemen driving drunk.

And if the police are ineffective and/or corrupt in one area, it becomes possible to imagine that they are the same in another. That destroys the deterrent effect. This is, in fact, where we are now -- the police don't (because can't) stop the drugs; that destroys the perception that they are effective, leading to adventurism by the criminals, and simultaneously absorbs resources that the police might use to be effective against crime.

Regards,
Ric

[Porchlight]

And if the police are ineffective and/or corrupt in one area, it becomes possible to imagine that they are the same in another. That destroys the deterrent effect. This is, in fact, where we are now -- the police don't (because can't) stop the drugs; that destroys the perception that they are effective, leading to adventurism by the criminals, and simultaneously absorbs resources that the police might use to be effective against crime.

So currently there is no real deterrent because police are ineffective and can't stop drugs from being available, and when criminals perceive this ineffectiveness they become more adventurous.

For the sake of argument, okay.

Now let's fast forward to legalized drugs.

Questions:

1) Would there be more or fewer drugs in the country if drugs were legal?

2) Would the police be more or less effective fighting street crime if drugs were legal?

3) Would more or fewer resources be needed to maintain police effectiveness if drugs were legal?

4) Are drug-using criminals more or less adventurous knowing police can no longer bust them for selling or possession?

4) Which is more difficult: keeping a 10-5unkie neighborhood safe when you can bust people for selling or possession, or keeping a 10-junkie neighborhood safe when you can't bust anyone for selling or possession? How about a 100-junkie neighborhood? How about a 1000-junkie neighborhood?

I swear, the logic just goes right out the window on this topic.

[Clarice]

"Hmm, how many would think they were having an acid flashback? Andrea Mitchell for sure.."

Excellent. And the rumor was she was going to replace Gibbs.

[Supply-Sider]

"I swear, the logic just goes right out the window on this topic."

Indeed. John Bohner says the cartels are just entrepreneurs, and since when did we become anti-business?

[Roland]

It would be far easier for the police to control the real crime in a neighborhood when they aren't constantly creating more criminals by busting them for behaviors that aren't injuring anyone else.

Once you've already got a criminal record it becomes far easier to rationalize theft, or even robbery.

All of the extra space in prison would also be useful for keeping real criminals incarcerated for longer periods. The incarcerated criminal isn't commiting crimes in the neighborhood while he's incarcerated.

Some here appear to have difficulty grasping the idea that even drug users can make different kinds of decisions from eachother about how they are going to treat other people.

[larry]

It's the obscene magnitude of the profits the dealers make that causes violence between the thugs. The users have to steal to feed their habit. The illegality is what makes the drugs profitable.

[LouP]

"The illegality is what makes the drugs profitable."

I beg to differ with you. It's the addiction that makes drugs profitable.

Rationalize, rationalize, rationalize...

Sorry, I'm not interested in beachfront property in Omaha, or a bridge in Brooklyn, either.

[John A]

I am not for total legalization. But the current Federal law places marihuana in the total-ban category for having NO medical use, which may have seemed true back in the 1950s but derivatives (largely synthesized nowm like aspirin was synthesized to replace willow bark potions) are used in medicine, As it stands, there are idiocies like the banning of importation of some rope (sail lines) from Canada because it is - gasp - hemp!

Funny, the Federal government used to think hemp was a GOOD thing -
http://www.archive.org/details/Hemp_for_victory_1942_FIXED

[larry]

Are you saying something that can be made for a dollar will sell for a hundred because of addiction?

[Roland]

Anyone who understands anything about what makes markets work so well in keeping prices down and how competition crushes profit margins understands it is the illegality that makes drugs so profitable.

When the market gets warped by the illegality forcing extraordinarily high risk on the suppliers, prices go sky high. The risk isn't worth it unless the suppliers can get monopoly prices, so they murder anyone undercutting their prices.

The price cutters cannot turn to the police for protection, since what they are doing is criminal. They have to engage in gang warfare, and risks and costs for everyone skyrocket.

[larry]

Yeah, what Roland said.

[Porchlight]

It would be far easier for the police to control the real crime in a neighborhood when they aren't constantly creating more criminals by busting them for behaviors that aren't injuring anyone else.

Okay, let's try it and see if you're right. Your neighborhood can go first.

The users have to steal to feed their habit.

Yes, and that will happen whether the drugs are legal or not.

[Carol.Herman]

The presidency is won as soon as a condidate demonstrates they can achieve 271 Electoral College votes.

Add to this that the congress is receiving in more conservative legislators elected to office. And, while they differ from state-to-state, there's a good chance that the GOP "could be" a house on fire ... (meaning the could win). But not if they don't do something about the elites. Who are extremely mad. And, more than likely not to be quick witted enough to get out of harm's way.

People don't dislike Obama. That "joy" went to LBJ, Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and both Bush's. He's just ineffective.

Meanwhile, Hckabee sees Palin as the candidate to beat. Or to get in her way, enough, that someone in Palin's camp offers him a position to fight in hers.

As to 2012, it's anybody's guess on "whose got coattails." And, if there are enough Blue Dogs to race ahead, with no fear that Pelosi will syringe them to death, as soon as they arrive in Congress.

When do Pelosi and Reid retire?

Next season, does "Dancing with Stars" get Sarah Palin invited to the ball?

How will Karl Rove handle the fake republican news?

Will the bamster look happy signing bills that pass congress? Couldn't that be a key to his re-election? He's got to knock off some of those 271 Electoral College votes to claim the 2012 prize. (And with it the future of the supreme court.)

[larry]

Porch-The users have to steal to feed their habit.

Yes, and that will happen whether the drugs are legal or not.

Well, they'll have to steal a lot more to buy illegal drugs. How much does it cost to produce marijuana for personal use?

[Wind Rider]

Ok, I'll play.

1) Would there be more or fewer drugs in the country if drugs were legal?

There would probably be higher visibility, thus the impression that there were 'more' drugs - even though the real crux of the argument currently is not the binary all or nothing proposition that many attempt to frame it as. Instead of guessing, it is instructive to look to examples of where such methods have been tried - Portugal comes to mind, as it's more towards the binary argument end of the spectrum. And you'd probably be surprised (or in denial) that the answer is - no, not really.

2) Would the police be more or less effective fighting street crime if drugs were legal?

The likely answer to this has got to be yes, if we consider the re-direction of assets towards actual crimes against people and property, assuming no reduction in manpower or spending. It would also result in higher cooperation rates among the general public with law enforcement efforts, knowing that they stood a less likely chance of winning (as in, losing) the drug law enforcement lottery.

3) Would more or fewer resources be needed to maintain police effectiveness if drugs were legal?

This question answers itself. If assets and resources are no longer employed for one targetted, specific purpose, they may either be re-assigned, or, if deemed no longer necessary, eliminated.

4) Are drug-using criminals more or less adventurous knowing police can no longer bust them for selling or possession?

This is an illogical situation. If cannabis were to be legalized, then, by definition, producing, possessing, or using it would not be illegal, and thus the entire question is moot. But, looking at the actual example we have from American history, with the end of the prohibition of alcohol, that wasn't really a fruitful turn of events for the criminal elements that took advantage of the situation. Unless you consider the acts of 'criminals' such as Anhauser Busch, in which case, I'm all for adventurous former pot kingpins, if they're going to set up a series of family themed amusement parks with really cool rides.

[larry]

W R-Would the police be more or less effective
answer to this has got to be yes

Sly dog. You know how to load a question.

Seed, dirt, water, light, labor, time. What can it cost? Essentially nothing.

[Wind Rider]

It does continually amaze that folks are so adamant about imaginary dystopian results from the legalization of cannabis - or that they continue to confuse the cause and effects of prohibition and criminal activities.

Why? Because we have an almost perfect analogous example already present in recent American History. The experiment of the prohibition of alcohol.

Almost no one believes that the prohibition of alcohol was not the primary driving factor to the rise of lawlessness and mob violence during that period. Nothing, absolutely nothing, before or since (excluding drugs) made money for the mob as bootlegging booze did. With repeal, that profit potential simply evaporated, and mobsters either went broke, went legit, or faded back to their more lucrative exploitation of vices for income.

We are seeing an utter reproduction of the situation with the prohibition of drugs, particularly cannabis. Particularly cannabis, because like alcohol, it is something that is relatively simple for individuals to produce for themselves, and does not require a logistical tail all the way to the slopes of the Andes, or the poppy fields of Southern Asia. This is not to say that everybody is growing, and as such there is a market demand for product from beyond our shores. A market demand that could be more than satisfied right here at home - thus kicking the vast majority of the profit potential for the drug cartels (as most of their money comes from pot, not coke, and even less from heroin) right out from under them. Additionally, detection and interdiction of cocaine and opiate based products would receive all of the focus of law enforcement. Treating the possession or use of cocaine and opiates as a public health issue (as the Portuguese have done) instead of a law enforcement issue would also deal with the people having this problem in a much more effective and economical manner, if the Portuguese experience is any guide.

We have enough examples in the real world that we do not need to play chicken little to our worst imaginary fears. Because in doing so, the record more than indicates, we solve nothing, and as a matter of fact make them worse overall.

[MarkO]

Dude! It's not legal? Gnarly.
Are you sure we have enough?

[cathyf]

The users have to steal to feed their habit.

Yes, and that will happen whether the drugs are legal or not.

A close friend's husband has emphysema, and was told 4 years ago when he came perilously close to dying of pneumonia, that he had maybe 7-8 years if he continued to smoke. And that is just the risk of the gradual lung damage -- more likely he dies earlier from the next bout of bronchitis that turns into pneumonia.

He quit smoking for 10 months.

That's about as addicted as it comes.

And, no, he hasn't ever had to steal in order to buy cigarettes.

[Porchlight]

And, no, he hasn't ever had to steal in order to buy cigarettes.

cathyf, the context here was street crime. I'm talking about crackheads and junkies - the types of addicts most closely associated with serious criminal activity (beyond the illegality of the drugs themselves). I'm pretty sure larry was too. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Well, they'll have to steal a lot more to buy illegal drugs.

If you have gotten to the point where your heroin habit is so bad that you can't hold a job and can't make rent and can't buy food, it doesn't matter whether the drugs cost $20 or $200, you're going to be stealing at least some of the time to get that fix.

Has no one here known serious drug addicts? (No, I'm not talking about nicotine.) I have. I've lived next door to them, I've been robbed by them, I've been hustled by them, I've babysat their kids when they were too effed up to stay awake. And these were just garden-variety, from-middle-class-homes, white hipsters on junk and meth.

Whatever. Let's try this little experiment. We're trying all the others.

[Porchlight]

If cannabis were to be legalized, then, by definition, producing, possessing, or using it would not be illegal, and thus the entire question is moot.

It does continually amaze that folks are so adamant about imaginary dystopian results from the legalization of cannabis

Oh, I'm sorry, were we only talking about the legalization of cannabis? Somehow I thought narcotics were also part of the equation.

My bad, it'll all be great. Carry on.

[larry]

cathyf-A close friend's husband has emphysema

Cathy, I am him/he is me. Smoked for 50 years a couple packs or more a day; quit 100 times. When I went on O2, I quit for a year and started again; smoked for a year and quit. Still quit at 13 months, 22 days. Also recovering alcoholic. I know addiction. I've been around family, friends and neighbors like W R describes. The point is if I was addicted to pot, would you rather I grow my own for free legally or pay the nabe guy $60, 80, 100, whatever, illegally but have to steal to pay?

[larry]

My apology, Porchlight. Friends, family, etc. like you described.

[Chubby]

(( I have not thought it necessary here to insist on that part of the functions of government which all admit to be indispensable, the function of prohibiting and punishing such conduct on the part of individuals in the exercise of their
freedom, as is clearly injurious to other persons, whether the case be one of force, fraud, or negligence. Even in the best
state which society has yet reached, it is lamentable to think how great a proportion of all the efforts and talents in the
world are employed in merely neutralizing one another. It is the proper end of government to reduce this wretched waste to the smallest possible amount, by taking such measures as shall cause the energies now spent by mankind in injuring one another, or in protecting themselves against injury, to be turned to the legitimate employment of the human faculties, that of compelling
the powers of nature to be more and more subservient to physical and moral good.))

The Principles of Political Economy
by John Stuart Mill
Book 5-Chapter 11

Somehow I don't think JSM would have agreed that fighting for more and more rights of intoxication are "legitimate employment of the human faculties, that of compelling
the powers of nature to be more and more subservient to physical and moral good."

[bunkerbuster]

Among Porchlite's false dichotomies, tautologies and circular logic, he ALMOST stumbles on the key question:

``3) Would more or fewer resources be needed to maintain police effectiveness if drugs were legal?''

Minor drugs like marijuana and ecstasy cannot be legalized in the U.S. because they are profit centers for the law enforcement and prison industries.
Cops are human too and most of them are well smart enough to know legalizing drugs would mean about half of them would lose their jobs.
The booming private-prison industry also knows where the butter for their bread comes from...
It's not the logic of decriminalizing drugs that's at issue, its the raw political power of those who prefer them illegal...

[larry]

Oh my. The end is near. bb-It's not the logic of decriminalizing drugs that's at issue, its the raw political power of those who prefer them illegal... There's a lot of truth in that, dammit.

[Janet]

Legalizing post is a terrible idea. I agree with Porchlight. Do any of you people have kids?
The whole "It's no big deal" attitude is a lie. Being drunk or stoned takes away inherent inhibitions...which leads to more sex, more poor choices,....
No matter how hard you try to raise your child right, it is almost impossible to compete with society telling them that these crap choices are "no big deal".
Legalize pot,...next legalize prostitution,...experiment with gay sex,...abort any babies that were conceived while you partied,....
We are gonna have a generation that is broken & numb.
It's like we're unable to say no to our children. Sad times...

[Janet]

**post = pot**

[Porchlight]

Come on, bb. I am not interested in boosting profits for people who make money off illegal drugs. I challenge you to find a single thing I've said that would support that assertion.

I understand the argument in favor of more liberty/fewer restrictions on behavior. I just don't think it's a victimless crime, and I don't want to live in the shitty world that I believe would be the inevitable result of legalized drugs, and I don't want to raise kids and grandkids in that world either. I've seen it up close and it sucks.

Encouraging widespread drug use by making it legal, easier, cheaper, and less stigmatized just seems like a total lose-lose to me.

And as for the liberty argument, I think you'd see just as much - but different - government intrusion and spending in order to "help" with the new reality.

[larry]

Have you guys heard what's going on in Mexico? The beer cartel are killing all the tequila cartel who are killing all the rum cartel...........

[Soylent Red]

Sitting typing this in the land of poppies, all I can say is that there is ample evidence that other people's exercise of their civil liberties, in this case, is invariably going to encroach on mine at some point. Everyone has a right to swing their fist through the air, right up until it touches my nose.

So let's make domestic growing and possession for personal use legal. Woohoo.

Then let's make anyone caught importing anything from anywhere outside the boundary of their permanent address or properties subject to mass burning at the stake on the 50-yard line of the Rose Bowl at halftime. No exception. No appeal.

Also, let's make selling anything you have grown or manufactured domestically, to anyone for any amount, punishable by losing your testicles or thumbs or nose. No exception. No appeal.

Finally, let's make an act of child neglect or vehicular homicide, during or as a result of intoxication or addiction to anything, including alcohol, subject to public flogging until dead in front of the courthouse. No exception. No appeal.

I really want everyone to exercise his or her civil liberties. I just don't want them to do it at my expense, when it funds a terror organization, or causes a death of a loved one, or forces me to raise and subsidize his or her children on my tax dollar.

At least under my plan we'd have junkies who were industrious enough to make their own poison, and fearful enough to keep it away from everyone else. Or dead.

[Pagar]

Soylent Red, Good to see you posting. Have a great Christmas.

[Donald]

Soylent, those people need to have the crap knocked out of them.

If as a libertine government, we mean it, then we gotta take the good with the bad.

All I know, in my current non-drug abusing state, and during my drug abusing state, and Ms Porch, I know what it is to be an addict, it never occured to me to steal or mug anybody. Never.

I don't believe I have to have a choice between a nanny or police state either. I believe I should get the state that was formed in the late 1780's.

I guess I part ways with most everybody on this, and to me it means I'm right for a change!

By the way, Dr. Drew is full of shit.

[Porchlight]

Ms Porch, I know what it is to be an addict, it never occured to me to steal or mug anybody. Never.

Okay. That's to your credit. But surely you do not deny that crime is committed by other addicts.

Hey, Soylent. Miss you around here. Stay safe and Merry Christmas.

[John]

I agree that the comparisons between alcohol and marijuana are ridiculous. There's no comparison. By absolutely every reasonable metric, marijuana is not only safer it's significantly safer. The fact that marijuana is currently illegal while alcohol is an accepted (and often celebrated) part of mainstream culture is an accident of history.

1. Harm to Self - Acute Toxicity: Hundreds of people in the U.S. die by overdosing on alcohol; many of them are college students or other young people. In contrast, it's essentially impossible to fatally overdose with marijuana.

2. Harm to Self - Long-Term Health Risks: Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S. and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence. Here again, marijuana is far less harmful. Most of the long-term health risks that do exist are a result of the most-common delivery mechanism, i.e. smoking. These risks can be eliminated by using a vaporizer. Furthermore, the latest and most comprehensive research on marijuana has concluded that it does not contribute to the development of lung cancer.

3. Harm to Self - Addiction: Alcohol is physically addictive. Marijuana is not. Alcohol withdrawal can actually be fatal in extreme cases of alcoholism. There's no marijuana equivalent to delerium tremens.

4. Harm to Others - Violence: Alcohol contributes to aggressive behavior and is highly correlated with violent crimes including domestic violence and sexual assault. (Alcohol is implicated in between 30 and 40 percent of all violent crimes and approximately 70 percent of instances of domestic violence.) Marijuana use on the other hand actually DECREASES the risk of violence.

5. Harm to Others - Impaired Driving: Obviously, you shouldn't drive while impaired by either alcohol or marijuana but the fact is that only alcohol use is highly correlated with an increased risk of fatal traffic accidents. (Drunk drivers kill people. Stoned drivers miss their exits.) The reason for this appears to be that while alcohol use increases risk-taking (drunk drivers will often drive faster and more recklessly), individuals who are impaired by marijuana are generally more cognizant of their impairment. Thus, they're more likely to either refuse to drive or compensate for their impairment by driving more slowly.

[LouP]

Jeez, I can't believe this thread is still active...

Speaking for myself (and I suspect a lot of others), I do not admire the hedonistic life-style made so apparent by the pot pushers in this thread. Or to be more plain, I see no social redeeming value in becoming intoxicated or high, whatever the source (pot, alcohol, or whatever). And I do not respect the superior knowledge of those who have rationalized the use of pot to include in-depth discussions of the merits of various degrees of intoxication, and alleged health benefits. I find it insulting and very disturbing that pot heads think that because I do not endorse their hedonistic objectives that I am the problem ('s funny, isn't it, how the user is never the problem - it's always the people who don't agree with their feel good, intoxication-oriented objectives. What? now pot heads are a new class of victimhood?)

No, I don't want the police to seek you out and lock you away in prison for an ounce of pot. What I would dearly wish is that you would grow up, mature, exercise a little self-discipline (i.e, man-up), and decide there's something more important in life than to figure out ways to get intoxicated, and to become an expert on all things relatied to intoxication, most of all the defense thereof.

[LouP]

Should have explicitly (so there's not doubt) added to my list of people I have no respect for: the alcoholics. But, then, I don't know any of them that extol the virtues of alcoholism or defend it (and certainly not with so much BS).

[Ellie Light]

The nation needs more potheads. Legalize pot now. Our IQs are too high!

[Stephanie]

Funny that just because I espoused a classical liberal position on this issue, I'm called a pot head. I don't partake and I seldom drink.

I'm arguing that if someone wants to get all trippy without infringing on the rights of others, they should be able to. But don't claim surprise when Moo decides to come for your pie. She, too is doing it from a "societal good" POV.

[Clarice]

I like Soylent's plan. Of course, in urban areas there'll probably be a movement on for community pot gardens, but that's a small inroad.

[Donald]

Let me answer ole LouP a moment. I ignored him the first time around.

Serious Crime - Relieving someone of their life, liberty, and property is a serious crime. I believe I have civilization since the dawn of man on my side. You got fear, ignorance, and just plain asshole on yours.

Everybody's got a problem. I'm sure you do, and since your such a brilliant moralizing asshole, I'm sure it's a doozy. Not that I give a fuck.

Merry Christmas Stephanie! Ceptin for ole LouP, I'm guessing that in their heart of hearts the good people here may not like drug use, ceptin for their substance of choice, but I don't think they're gonna come busting down our doors. So we got time to bring them around from the dark side!