Legalize marijuana? Schwarzenegger says let’s debate it

Published on May 6th, 2009

Legalize marijuana? Schwarzenegger says let’s debate it | csmonitor.com — This is actually an issue that the Republicans can take to the bank (in more ways than one) if they jump on the legalization bandwagon. Obama has done nothing in this regard.

It wasn’t as though Arnold Schwarzenegger held a press conference with Cheech and Chong in the back of a van and said, “Whoa, I have this awesome idea, man…” The governor was asked if he would support the legalization and taxation of marijuana to help the state of California get out of its budgetary mess.

No, he doesn’t support that — at least right now. He said specifically, “No, I think it’s not time for that.”

It was the rest of his statement, however, that’s caused a stir around the pro-legalization world. The governor said it should be talked about.

“I think it’s time for a debate,” he said. “I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues, I’m always for an open debate on it.”

70 users responded in " Legalize marijuana? Schwarzenegger says let’s debate it "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Brian said, on May 6th, 2009 at 10:22 am

Well for starters it could save the 10 billion that is spent in CA every year on eradication.

Will not even guess how much they would save by not jailing pot smokers.

# 2 Paddy-O said, on May 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am

It would bring some tax $ in. Most would stay underground to avoid, as they do now.

Brian, CA spends almost nothing on jailing pot smokers.

# 3 Improbus said, on May 6th, 2009 at 10:26 am

Legalize marijuana … what is the downside? Empty beds in prisons?

# 4 Breetai said, on May 6th, 2009 at 10:29 am

It wont bring in Tax money. that’s pie in the sky it’s a freaking weed anybody and everybody can grow it on thier own.

Dosen’t matter Republicans are too stupid to take advantage of it, they’re dead in californiae.

# 5 Angus said, on May 6th, 2009 at 10:36 am

I guess the question is whether it’s a states’ rights issue, or a federal government issue. I tend to think that it’s an interstate commerce issue. If it’s legal in Cali, then other states need to respect that law, hence, a grey area.

# 6 Bob said, on May 6th, 2009 at 10:40 am

As someone who is in favor a legalization, I don’t think the republicans are going to do it. In many ways this is whats killing them. Its ok to have your beliefs rooted in Christianity, but you have to temper that with the belief in individual responsibility. i.e. if somone is not hurting anyone but themselves by smoking pot, then whats the problem with letting them do it?

I mean telling people how to run their life? That’s the exact same thing the democrats do.

# 7 Bob said, on May 6th, 2009 at 10:42 am

#5, while I agree its a state issue. I also have to say, I don’t think it would be as big of a problem. In many ways it would be like gambling is now with Nevada. You can smoke as much pot as you want in California, but the moment you step out of the state and into say… Oregon, you need to be drug free.

# 8 Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection said, on May 6th, 2009 at 10:42 am

Marijuana has personally cost me a small fortune. Those seeds in joints explode and burn holes in my habit. And then I eat all the communion wafers. I tried the wine and it really sucked, I’d rather drink bong water. It may just be me but I think Kendall-Jackson tastes like Michael Jackson.

# 9 Thinker said, on May 6th, 2009 at 10:45 am

Perhaps he wants to debate it so it can be put to rest. Legalization is a bad idea.

#5 States can differ on what is permissable and whats not. Witness the issues of ‘Gay Marriage’, states are not required to recognize one performed in Hawaii, though they may choose too. Indeed States will acutally say explictly that they do recognize ’something’ that was done in another state.

# 10 Ah_Yea said, on May 6th, 2009 at 10:45 am

Refreshing that a politician wants to talk about this.

Although anyone can grow marijuana if they wanted, the same goes for tobacco.

And I don’t see very many people growing tobacco to avoid the cigarette tax.

# 11 Paddy-O said, on May 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am

# 4 Breetai said, “they’re dead in californiae.”

And with them, California’s financial stability died.

# 12 Dave W said, on May 6th, 2009 at 11:01 am

Goodness, am I going to have to start liking Schwarzenegger ?

Of course it is about time. It’s about time that government gets it through its head that it is none of their business what I or anyone else ingests. This is an excellent start, and it actually takes some balls, which Schwarzenegger actually appears to have.

As for money..sure, its a weed that people can grow, but guess what? The supermarket produce departments are chock full of plants that people could grow if they wanted to. Most people chose not to for one reason or another. Like many, I live in an apartment building (same goes for condos) with no place for planting crops. Add to that I have a red (opposite of green) thumb and have managed to kill each and every plant I’ve ever tried to grow, so I wouldn’t bother.

Hey, we have a Black president, gay marriage in Iowa, and General Motors, Chrysler and Bank of America are insolvent. If you’d told me these things 10 years ago, I’d have fitted you for a jacket with very, very long sleeves.

# 13 ECA said, on May 6th, 2009 at 11:03 am

lets add a few other thoughts on this..
MJ or hemp production?

HEMP is illegal for a few reasons.
It can be used to make paper and the WOOD corps dont like this idea. Its renewable.
It can be used to be GREAT clothing. THAT LASTS. NO SHEEP, NO COTTON PLANTATIONS.
Cross pollination with MJ, kills the BUZZ that MJ gives people. So, MJ has to be isolated.
EVEN ALASKA can grow HEMP and MJ, 1 crop per year. Other places can grow upto 6 crops per year.
It can be used a PULP product, EVEN corn stalks can, to make structured materials. to replace LUMBER.

And AFTER THE FACT..
HEMP and MJ could be made CHEAPER then WOOD, Cloth, Medicines, and so forth..

# 14 Cursor_ said, on May 6th, 2009 at 11:24 am

Outside of medical use Marijuana has no other useful purpose.

I say legalise the medical use and make recreational use an offense you can be fined for but not imprisoned.

No one should use any drug unless they are sick anyway.

Cursor_

# 15 tomdennis said, on May 6th, 2009 at 11:26 am

I’ll pay the smoke’m tax on a pack and I won’t drive stoned.

# 16 Alex said, on May 6th, 2009 at 11:51 am

“Outside of medical use Marijuana has no other useful purpose.”

Well, let’s assume for a second your statement isn’t false, which I consider it is (recreation is a useful purpose, and this isn’t exactly the first thing we grow that has primarily a recreation purpose – see, e.g., tobacco, and alcohol). Your statement is like saying “Outside of nutritional value, Corn has no other useful purpose.”

It does what it *does*. It creates no chemical dependency (though it can create a mental dependency; but so can everything else), it’s entirely nonviolent, studies suggest it’s non-carcinogenic, and it’s intoxication effects are far less collaterally dangerous than alcohol or other “hard” drugs. There’s no logical, clear reason to prohibit it, except for the sake of prohibition.

# 17 Alex said, on May 6th, 2009 at 11:52 am

Also, no one should be surprised Arnie wants to “negotiate” about tokin’ up. He’s on film smoking a J on his “Pumping Iron” video. Self-medicating, as it were.

# 18 Think2wice said, on May 6th, 2009 at 11:53 am

Interesting how everyone focuses on the money. Not one thinks of the problems as the result of making pot legal.

People are the problem in this issue, more thatn the pot. Like alcohol and cellphones, it’s the abuse and misuse of the item.

Alcohol is legal, it’s taxed, and look at all the health, safety and legal cost are involved in dealing with it’s abuse and misuse.

Califonria passed laws that prohibited the use of cellphones and texting while driving. I still see people doing it, I even saw a cop the other day doing it.

If anyone need a reason not to legalize pot to the masses. Imagine a whole state full of “Steve-Os

# 19 Jägermeister said, on May 6th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

Election coming up?

# 20 RTaylor said, on May 6th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

We can’t win the battle with the big drug lords. There’s an endless supply of entrepreneurs waiting to take over if you knock out one. Our laws just empowers them. Prohibition doesn’t work. The last time I smoked weed was 1978. Today I take xanax and antidepressants. Too many hands are in the pot against legalizing grass.

# 21 LibertyLover said, on May 6th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

#19, Must be.

And I have no problem legalizing it. I really hate the fact the state sees fit to deny just such a freedom as to engage in a recreational activity that hurts no one.

That being said, I don’t smoke it. Not because it’s illegal but because I am such a control freak I don’t like being incapacitated even slightly. Don’t drink much, either

# 22 brm said, on May 6th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

There’s nothing to discuss.

Alcohol is more dangerous, yet it’s legal. If pot is ilegal, booze should be illegal. Otherwise, free the weed. End of discussion.

# 23 brm said, on May 6th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

#14:

Please turn in all your caffeine.

“No one should use any drug unless they are sick anyway.”

This is just what you think, and it’s stupid. Define ‘drug.’ Define ’sick.’

# 24 Thinker said, on May 6th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

ahh…I think the ‘debate’ Arnold’s looking for is for other inventive ideas to create revenue, but not with legalization of drugs.

Re-read the above bit…Cagey politician.

# 25 SparkyOne said, on May 6th, 2009 at 2:05 pm

Due to drought conditions I removed my back lawn over a year ago. I still grow grass, just not the kind the DEA likes. Very little water is required, low maintenance except for that damn harvest time (four per year where I live) but I have managed to bruit-force my way through two or three weekends of “yard work”.

# 26 bogart said, on May 6th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

I don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t toke, caffeine is my only monkey but come on this is so obvious. After the dismal failure of Prohibition in the US and the illegal cannabis trade showing the same plight as illegal alcohol did, having it be legalize is the only rational thing to do.

Sell it just like alcohol and tobacco the ATF can be the ATFMj

Think about it the 18 Amendment is the only Amendment United States Constitution that has been repealed. hmmm wonder why… goes against 200,000 years of human nature. (that’s 6500 years for you that buy that myth)

# 27 brm said, on May 6th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

#26:

“Sell it just like alcohol and tobacco the ATF can be the ATFMj”

But we don’t have an agency that sticks its nose in when I want to sell vegetables from my garden. That’s part of the ‘problem’ with weed – anyone can grow it.

# 28 bogart said, on May 6th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

#27
not sure about your neck of the woods

Most States permit the manufacture of wine or beer in home for personal consumption, and not for sale.

# 29 bogart said, on May 6th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

28 continued sorry hit post to soon

The selling part is where the tax money would come from and the buyers would get to buy a consistent product in safe places from unarmed sellers.

# 30 John C Dvorak said, on May 6th, 2009 at 3:19 pm

#4 people can grow tomatoes too, but they still buy then at the store.

# 31 Dallas said, on May 6th, 2009 at 3:31 pm

Arnold is the only Republican that seems to have any sense. His views on most things have a practical purpose to them and I admire for those.

I’m pretty sure his marriage to a Democrat (Kennedy) is a big reason.

I’m also glad he in the GOP, maybe he can smack some sense in to that party.

# 32 Hugh Ripper said, on May 6th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

Of even greater value that the drug itself is hemp. Wonderful stuff. You can make anything out of it. It has unfortunately been hit by the anti-drug hysteria, no doubt encouraged by artificial fibre manufacturers.

The commercialisation of ganja is a real can of worms though, and I’m not sure anyone has really thought through how its going to work.

# 33 Jägermeister said, on May 6th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

#31 – Dallas – Arnold is the only Republican that seems to have any sense.

He’s populist. This is just another publicity stunt to get votes.

# 34 ECA said, on May 6th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

the LAW is against HEMP. or was originally.
NOT MJ. MJ is part of the same family.

Good luck with fighting the Major PAPER and LUMBER corps..

# 35 bogart said, on May 6th, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Consider this about it GOP stoners are usually only motivated to get out to vote for the right to be stoners but when there they will vote to the left on the rest of the ballot. Letting them have this will keep them away from the polls.

Thinking about the long history of labor alcohol and politics, Mj could pacify the masses and add profit to American corporations this sounds so Republican.

and the Dems can add a new sin tax every body wins

# 36 Scott said, on May 6th, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Worthless pandering and posturing. Until and umless all federal statues are removerd first, Arnold (or any other state executive) can do whatever they like. It changes nothing, except the name on the fornt of the court building in which sentencing will occur.

Modern political smoke and mirrors. Anyone proposing legalization (or anything else) can say they tried, see that their effrts come to nothing, then argue that this did not come to pass on their watch. Immigration reform is rife with this ruse. The spin changes depending on the audience. Nothing else changes.

# 37 soundwash said, on May 6th, 2009 at 5:36 pm

/digressions-R-Us

this is just a ploy of distraction and to pull touchy-feely legalization votes to his side-, “possibly” justifying funding for another program with 72¢ on the dollar administrative costs. -also, to give the impression of caring about what the public “feels” by engaging in talk about a topic that his party (and many others) would consider to be political suicide.

i’d trust a serial killer before i’d
trust him. he will say anything to keep the krieglights focused on him and the designs
he and his colleagues have. he has a savage ego that needs daily feeding, as do his “people”

he a blockbuster actor -and a politician.
-a potentially dangerous combo depending
on who he serves and what the long term
agenda is.
—

imo, as long as their is a war on “something”
-the hardware people will make gobs of money to fill campaign coffers, which in turn allows
the government gain/create more intrusive and restrictive laws. which in turns justifies
more funding for said hardware and humans (manpower) (and now automated robots (UAV’s etc) to operate them.

-a war on drugs fills this need nicely as long as the real statistics are suppressed.

-hardware: defined as “soft military” vehicles, weapons, technology and especially, the upcoming robotics and surveillance explosion that nanotech. (and don’t forgot the huge infrastructure of administrative costs to track and control it all)

i see a big move to robotic/automated/unmanned “stuff” in the future as these items do not require a health plan. and as we all know, health care is probably the #1 long term cost (and back breaker) of any major corp that employs a large labour force. (In the USA anyway)

aside from that, the obvious solution, would be to legalize ALL DRUGS. this would serve as a crippling blow to the cartels and create all
sorts of new revenue streams that we could actually track)

they (the cartels and government/BlackOps) would still make money selling on the black market, but nothing compared to what they make now. -or so i think.

i’m sure BigPharma would love the idea
and form even stronger ties to the cartels than they already have) -ie, “we have a shipment leaving XXX at 10am on XXX date, it needs to be lost” -company still makes legal money on the write off, then gets double/triple
(whatever) for selling the shipment to the black market. -everyone wins, except, of course, the tax payer. (lost tax revenue)

-but then, we lose by design. just look at the current scam congress is pulling with the PPIP
and all the other scams.

(an old saying we have here when buying anything of value “on the street” is “hey, it fell off a truck”)

anyway, back on topic, the main problem with this idea (legalization) is the government still thinks that we as a society as a whole, cannot act as responsible adults.

(ironically, if you compare congress to
the general populous, they are THE MOST irresponsible adults on the planet,
let alone USA)

-barring of course the recent explosion of general-public idiots who signed on the
dotted line for big ticket items they could never hope to afford. -which btw, our bought and payed for congress authorized, hook, line and sinker

see how that works?

-and i don’t pick sides here. -anyone who (is not blinded by) and does not subscribe to the left-right paradigm knows both sides are equally responsible for the failings of our government, -and by extension, so are we,
-for being dumb enough to buy into their
crap.

(that we are dumbed down by design is no mistake)

i mean come’on, do you really thing legalizing any drug that is now illegal will result in immediate increase to epidemic proportions of wholesale drug use that seems to be basis for most anti-legalization fanatics.?

-of course, if we continue to allow former BigPharma employees to run the FDA and
“pay off” doctors, medical institutions
and politicians to push bad drugs like
candy via scientifically bankrupt studies
that warrant their use, then yes we might
see a bump in the stats.

if anyone dares to be honest, -as far as i
can see, illegal drugs are far safer and
have a lower mortality rate than legal
ones. compare the stats, -it is quite
obvious.

personally, i know more people who
have died or suffered debilitating damage
from prescribed/legal drugs than illegal
ones. i grew up and have been around, as
well as part of, the “illicit drug component” my whole life and even that is still not enough to skew my personal observations
of the facts.

however, that is a can of worms for a different thread.

-s

# 38 deowll said, on May 6th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

Run a few polls to see what the public really thinks and if you don’t get over 50% saying yes, shut the bleep up and stop wasting people’s time.

However be sure and check with somebody other than just the pot heads.

A lot of non users don’t actually enjoy the company of such people or the way they act.

# 39 brm said, on May 6th, 2009 at 6:06 pm

#38:

Dumb.

Who cares what the majority thinks. The majority of people didn’t want to send the British home in 1776.

“A lot of non users don’t actually enjoy the company of such people or the way they act.”

Tough luck. I don’t enjoy the company of people who think majority rules is a good idea, but I have to tolerate you. I have to tolerate white trash. I have to tolerate rap music. I have to tolerate drunks. etc, etc.

There was probably a time when the majority of people didn’t enjoy the company of blacks, nor did they want to let them vote. BUT OVER HALF SO MUST BE RIGHT!

# 40 Hugh Ripper said, on May 6th, 2009 at 6:26 pm

#38 Part of the perpetuation of the ridiculous drug laws is based on ‘hippie hate’, that is people dislike illegal drugs because they dislike the ‘type’ of people who use em. Its time to grow up and see the damage (financial and otherwise) that drug hysteria causes.

# 41 Greg Allen said, on May 6th, 2009 at 8:09 pm

The legalized drug advocates like to point out that legal drugs could be taxed.

How much are we talking about? It’s a good argument. The tax, at the very least, should pay for free drug rehabilitation programs for anyone who wants it. And for medical treatment of the pot smokers with lung problems. If harder drug are legalized, it should pay for the social problems those cause. And housing of drug addicts who can’t keep a job.

As a tax payer, I certainly will resent having to pick up the social costs of legalized drugs.

I can’t begin to guess how much the tax would be. Quite high, I assume. Drug fans might wish it had stayed illegal.

# 42 Hugh Ripper said, on May 6th, 2009 at 8:14 pm

#41 As a taxpayer, you resent picking up the social costs of tobacco and alcohol?

# 43 Greg Allen said, on May 6th, 2009 at 8:20 pm

I’ve never been convinced by this argument, “If alcohol is legal, so should pot.”

Why?

Is there some moral imperative that we must have yet another legal intoxicant?

The two are different.

Alcohol can be bad but has been around in the west for so many centuries that it got grandfathered in.

But there is an even bigger difference: the way it is used.

Lots and lots of people enjoy alcohol without getting drunk. That includes me. I drink, but I have just one and it doesn’t affect me much.

But pot? Everybody who uses it, gets high. I don’t know anybody who smokes pot for the taste.

That’s a huge difference, which I will consider if I get to vote on this issue.

# 44 Greg Allen said, on May 6th, 2009 at 8:24 pm

Hugh,

Yes I do. Both should be taxed for whatever the social costs of those products are.

And I say this as person who drinks. What is the total societal cost of alcohol? That should be the MINIMUM tax on it.

Even though I am a liberal, this is conservative policy. People should pay for their own behavior.

# 45 Hugh Ripper said, on May 6th, 2009 at 8:38 pm

#43 So its the getting drunk / high problem that worries you? Why? What do you care? As long as its not harmful to others, why is it any of your business if what I (a hypothetical I) do?

The worst that can happen with ganja is that a stoned person might try to engage you in conversation and talk bollocks at you for hours. With a drunk person, violence is often on the menu. It seems to me incongruous in this context that ganja is illegal.

Lots of people drink and don’t get (very) drunk, but many do.

There’s no legal imperative to legalise ganja. Only a logical, financial and libertarian ones.

# 46 soundwash said, on May 6th, 2009 at 8:48 pm

#38 lol..hey goomba, get a clue.

i know personally know seven pot smokers over 45 and three over 55, and a few over 70. -most are women, who if you met them, would never a have clue they smoke anything. all but three of them are high end corporate types. two run their own companies and one is retired.

the bulk of the younger ones come from
money, work for the city, are chefs, doormen
bouncers, lawyers, work behind a counter or employed in the financial sector. all are successful, responsible and only smoke a few times a week if that, in the evenings or on weekends only.

most important, they all are well grounded (save for the lawyers) and are fun to be around.

all these people look like the type you would see in typical adverts for clothes. -none of them advertise in anyway, what they are doing in the privacy of their homes.

how do i know this? i do house calls in nyc, fixing computers since ‘93. i eventually become very good friends with all my clients.

in reality, the long haired pot smoking hippie sterotype died off the 80’s. only the MSM and pols keeps that stereotype alive to give the ignorant ones “a type” to focus manipulated hate at. in short, you’ve been had.

surprised? -i hope not.
it’s been that way for a very, very long time.

now, go turn off your TV. it has obviously impaired your brain far more than you knew.
go out learn and for yourself, what people are *really like* before you make statements
based on someone else’s idea of reality.

-s

# 47 Hugh Ripper said, on May 6th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

#44 Why should people who use alcohol responsibly pay for those who don’t? People need to be responsible for their own actions, no matter how inebriated they are.

Freely available education and information on how to use drugs responsibly and healthily is what’s needed, not ignorant moralising and ‘blame the drug’ taxation approaches.

# 48 soundwash said, on May 6th, 2009 at 9:18 pm

#41, greg, -for reason i stated above, i believe you too, are clueless. your parroting
very tired and old argument based on false data.

it is quite obvious you do not know anybody worth a spit that smokes, nor have a clue about those around around who may
be smokers and not advertise the fact, for fear repercussions from close-minded or mis-informed peoples such as yourself.

personally, i think it should be decriminalized at the federal level for starters. nobody should have their life ruined because they elect to smoke instead of drink.

i still think the answer is to legalize all drugs. it would solve far more problems than
it could ever create.

-s

# 49 brm said, on May 6th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

#43:

“I’ve never been convinced by this argument, “If alcohol is legal, so should pot.””

because the arguments are always like, ‘pot is bad for individuals and it’s bad for society,’ followed by an enumeration of all the ills of marijuana, which are the same ills caused by alcohol and tobacco, albeit in greater degree by the legal drugs. It’s inconsistent.

If we’re going to make only one legal to satisfy some arbitrary number (chosen by you) of permissible intoxicants, why not legalize the safer of the two? (hint: it’s pot.)

Oh yeah, probably because you don’t like to smoke pot, yet you’ll drink a beer.

“Lots and lots of people enjoy alcohol without getting drunk. That includes me.”

Good for you. Consider yourself in the minority. Very few people who dislike the effect of alcohol drink it. You might not get smashed, but a single drink does have a physical effect.

It’s called a ‘buzz’, which is what someone who takes a single puff of weed is after. Not everyone smokes an entire bag of grass when they use marijuana, but you seem to think this.

I’d wager that the mode of transport is why booze is OK but pot is evil. If you had to smoke alcohol but could drink marijuana, the legality would be reversed, no doubt.

# 50 ECA said, on May 6th, 2009 at 11:35 pm

AS MANY RELIGIOUS PERSONS do..

“iM RIGHT YOU ARE wrong”, “and i will beat you up until you AGREE”

My comment.
Is it YOUR right to FIX my sins?? Or is it my RIGHT to go to hell?

# 51 Lou said, on May 7th, 2009 at 12:18 am

Arnie get your bag out and roll a fat one.

# 52 Mr. Fusion said, on May 7th, 2009 at 12:26 am

#49, brm,

I think Greg’s comment has a lot of merit. Just because alcohol is legal does not mean everything else that may be harmful should be too.

Like your mother used to ask you. “Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else was jumping off it?”.

Even if pot is legalized will make little difference in America’s drug problem. While pot is relatively benign, chemical drugs; ectasy, heroin, cocaine, meth, illegal pharma and the like pose serious problems. Most prisoners doing time for drugs are in for those, not pot. And then they are there for trafficking, not using.

I am very much in favor of the governments getting much more involved with helping addicts through intervention programs instead of forcing them into the back alleys. It costs a lot less to help an addict on the street quit than to jail them.

# 53 amodedoma said, on May 7th, 2009 at 12:42 am

I think that anything that can help keep more americans out of jail is a good thing. Let’s not forget who’s got the largest per capita prison population in the world. Given that americans are humans just like the rest of us, maybe they have too many offenses punishable by jail time.

# 54 brm said, on May 7th, 2009 at 12:57 am

#52:

“Just because alcohol is legal does not mean everything else that may be harmful should be too.”

I’m not arguing this. I’m arguing that since we don’t have a problem with alcohol, it follows that, at the least, we shouldn’t have a problem legalizing anything less harmful. To do otherwise doesn’t make sense, imo.

‘Like your mother used to ask you. “Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else was jumping off it?”.’

This isn’t even applicable. Nice finger wagging, though. Naughty naughty pot smokers!

“chemical drugs … pose serious problems”

And many of them can be used recreationally by responsible adults.

How many alcoholics live in America? How many cocaine addicts? Which of the two is more hazardous behind the wheel? Yeah.

Alcohol is a far more dangerous and pervasive drug than just about every other substance, yet we’ve agreed to keep it legal. Why not apply the same standard to the other drugs and save ourselves a bunch of live and money?

“Most prisoners doing time for drugs are in for those, not pot.”

I’ve not heard this.

How many prisoners are doing time for crimes committed while drunk? Oh yeah, you also probably enjoy drinking beer, so you’ll conveniently ignore that figure.

“And then they are there for trafficking, not using.”

If we eliminate the illegal market for drugs, then by your logic drug crime should all but disappear. Which side are you arguing against? I can’t tell.

# 55 Cursor_ said, on May 7th, 2009 at 1:51 am

Yes caffeine is a drug and should be used in medication preparations as needed to treat illness. Same with alcohol, opiates and other ingredients.

Drugs are for fixing problems, not to be used as a toy.

The pallid excuses of well its legal for some are as insipid as saying; “Well the cow is out of the barn, why not let the horse out too!”

If this was a sound method of thought, then why not let opiates back out? Why hide the cold meds so no one can make meth? Coke is ok as well, let’s shoot it up. They did that back in the 19th century. They had lots of drugs back then and gave them to kids and they were cheap.

This is the argument of someone that is living their life by the end justifys the means.

For those that say it doesn’t harm as much as booze. Well a thief doesn’t rape thank god. And a rapist doesn’t murder.

That kind of argument is as fallacious as the above barn is open let all the animals out one.

Face it those that want pot for more than medication are the ones that will be using it solely for their own pleasure at the expense of themselves and others. Just like the people that over use booze and caffeine.

Eventually this over use will cause physical, mental and emotional issues. That eventually will have to be treated in some means. That will cost the user money and if it means a treatment facility, then taxpayers.

So ‘I’ pay for your use. I pay for it now and I will continue to pay for it because you cannot bring yourself to be a responsible sentient lifeform. YOU WANT what YOU WANT and to hell with anyone else, including yourself.

Ethics, compassion for others and not acting immediately on every single self-absorbed desire is what separates us from common animals.

All overuse of ANYTHING is bad for the user, the family of the user and the general public. In the end, someone other than yourself will have to pay for your actions too.

YOU are NOT an ISLAND.

Cursor_

# 56 brm said, on May 7th, 2009 at 2:27 am

#55:

“Drugs are for fixing problems, not to be used as a toy.”

Says you.

I hope you *always* use things for their base functional purpose, else you’d be a hypocrite.

Ever take your car out for a joyride with no destination in mind? If you get in an accident on such an unnecessary trip and use Medicare for the bills, can I berate you for not considering your cost to ‘the taxpayers’?

“Face it those that want pot for more than medication are the ones that will be using it solely for their own pleasure”

Exactly.

I want to kick back after work, drink a beer and smoke a doobie, and not have to worry about getting thrown in the clink with murderers and rapists for doing so.

“at the expense of themselves and others”

This isn’t a zero-sum game. A penny doesn’t come out of my pocket every time someone takes a swig of beer, though you’d like to believe that.

“That will cost the user money and if it means a treatment facility, then taxpayers.”

Less than paying to run the jails? I very seriously doubt that.

“So ‘I’ pay for your use.”

I really hope no one in your house is fat.

“All overuse of ANYTHING is bad for the user”

You can’t imagine that anyone would use a drug in moderation, can you?

Are you a recovering addict or something? Are you projecting your own lack of self-control? I’m really trying to figure out why you’re so rabid about this always-uncontrollable-overuse angle.

“That kind of argument is as fallacious as the above barn is open let all the animals out one.”

Metaphors are for weak minds. Try thinking about the situation in terms of itself.

Nothing about drug legalization resembles ‘letting animals out of a barn.’

# 57 brm said, on May 7th, 2009 at 2:29 am

#56:

“Yes caffeine is a drug and should be used in medication preparations as needed to treat illness.”

You’re such a hopeless, out-of-touch idiot. Are you also a vegan?

# 58 brm said, on May 7th, 2009 at 2:36 am

Of course, in #56 I meant:

“MORE than running the jails”

# 59 Alfred1 said, on May 7th, 2009 at 4:09 am

When Bill Buckley came out for drug legalization and declared the “drug war” a failure, the issue of drug legalization ceased to be a left-right issue. Mr. Buckley wrote, “So what has the drug war done? It has made a mockery of an anti-drug law that is simply ignored by millions; it has induced violent felonies in pursuit of drug profits; and it is self-evidently powerless to do anything about the recent increase in marijuana use by reckless adolescents.”

Mr. Buckley makes the conservative case against the drug war by evaluating “The practicality of a legal constriction, as for instance, what those states ought to do whose statute books continue to outlaw sodomy, which interdiction is unenforceable, making the law nothing more than print on paper.” He added, “I came to the conclusion that the drug war was not working, and that it would not work absent a change in the structure of the civil rights to which we cling as a valuable part of our patrimony.” We need to calculate the cost to society by outlawing drugs and weigh it against its legalization. -Conservative Case for Drug Legalization: Marijuana
Author: Tom Donelson

Freedom requires freedom to choose…

One thing is clear, many now unemployable because of drug related felonies have had their rights to life, liberty and pursuit to happiness vacated…and intollerable situation from conservative point of view.

Decrimminalization probably requires those drugs known to cause physical harm would require a doctors perscription?

While pot is an easy yes vote, the other drugs may require much deliberation.

# 60 Paddy-O said, on May 7th, 2009 at 4:24 am

# 25 SparkyOne said, “Due to drought conditions I removed my back lawn over a year ago. I still grow grass, just not the kind the DEA likes. ”

Where I grew up in CA it was growing wild all over. Legalizing it won’t do much. The growers won’t go along because they will have to pay taxes that they don’t currently.

# 61 Alfred1 said, on May 7th, 2009 at 4:26 am

I see some analogy here between that couple who fell in love while both were teenagers… who are now married with children years later…but are listed as sex offenders and have their rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, severely diminished.

Conservatism requires cognizance of reality…The drug war failed…people want to get high…criminalization ruins American lives.

Some activity is innoculous…outlawing pot use is similar to outlawing teenage love…its stupid and a wrong use of the law…

I do support Jessica’s law however, where adults get 25 years for peodophila. That despicable act takes away the child’s right to a life of liberty, and his pursuit of happiness, as the act affects them their entire life.

The penalty should fit the crime.

# 62 BubbaRay said, on May 7th, 2009 at 4:31 am

#53, Amodedoma, “Given that americans are humans just like the rest of us, maybe they have too many offenses punishable by jail time.”

I think that could be right. In some muslim countries, isn’t theft punishable by chopping off a hand? Now that’s a deterrent, even though I disagree with it. Maybe it keeps the jails less full, I don’t know and I certainly do not want to find out. I think both punishments (for MJ here and theft there) are extreme for the crime.

“Hey, Joey, ever been in a Turkish prison?”

# 63 Alfred1 said, on May 7th, 2009 at 5:12 am

#60 Some (include me) believe politicians don’t go along because it would diminish their revenue stream from the producers/importers and dealers.

# 64 Mr. Fusion said, on May 7th, 2009 at 5:28 am

brm

Wanting to do something “just because I want to” is not a very responsible argument.

First, I don’t smoke tobacco although I did for 30+ years. I don’t smoke pot any more although I did for quite a few years (I really prefer hashish myself). And I might have 3 or 4 oz. of alcohol in a year at social occasions, and I don’t like beer.

Although “curser” made the counter argument much better than I could, I’m just going to throw my two cents back into the pool.

Your argument seems hinged around the fact that “well alcohol is legal and it is a worse drug than pot”. OK, so that means you always wanted to jump off of bridges because everyone else did. So there is a river below, that isn’t as bad as jumping off a bridge over a ravine.

I’m arguing that since we don’t have a problem with alcohol, it follows that, at the least, we shouldn’t have a problem legalizing anything less harmful.

I see you’ve never been to a Twelve Step meeting. Alcoholics Anonymous is the best known. You might attend some night and listen to what damage alcohol has done to people’s lives. Then you won’t be saying “we don’t have a problem with alcohol”.

Most offenders behind bars for drugs are there for large quantities of chemicals, trafficking, or manufacturing. Most possession charges end up being probation or diversion programs.

# 65 Alex said, on May 7th, 2009 at 7:10 am

“Most offenders behind bars for drugs are there for large quantities of chemicals, trafficking, or manufacturing. Most possession charges end up being probation or diversion programs.”

I hate to break it to you, but… that’s just plum not true.

These guys aren’t going to State Prison, true, but a few months in jail isn’t exactly a picnic either. You only get probation or diversion programs once, maybe twice, depending on the judge. After that they start locking you up unless you start taking the initiative.

Let’s also not forget the idiotic presumption of “possession with intent to distribute”, ie, if you have above a certain amount in weight you are presumed to have wanted to sell it. And the amounts are *not* that great at all.

# 66 Cursor_ said, on May 7th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

#56

Not a vegan and not a former user now cleaned up. Never used.

As for car. No I never went out without a purpose. I make a plan every single morning of what I will do for the day. I start work at 3am most days and end it around 3pm. I do that 6 days a week. I am very very busy and have to schedule time. So to me it is worth money.

I never got into the habit of drugs, so I am objective about it.

When you do drugs, you don’t think there is anything wrong. When you hang around those that do drugs, it reinforces how ok drugs are.

So you wouldn’t know any better if you do them and all your friends do them.

Its like being in an abusive household.

You are living it, you don’t know any better after time. And when you go to a friend’s house and they get into trouble and not get beaten like a dog, you realise. FUCK! I’m in a bad situation.

Its only THEN to you find out what is really going on.

When you stop being in that culture and step outside. You will see just how much time, energy, money and stress you put yourself through to induce an endorphin experience.

You’ll see how much it costs people who don’t even know you in time, energy, money and stress.

As I said. YOU are NOT an Island.

We live in a connected world. What you do affects others. And what others do affects you.

Cursor_

# 67 fartacus said, on May 7th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

The United States as both an idea and a state was founded on the principle of liberty and justice. The constitution itself, from the first draft to the current version, specifies that all people are free to do whatever they want, with such and such exceptions. The government may not regulate anything except such and such. It’s a way of thinking where the default is liberty, unless there is a strong reason against restricting that liberty in a certain way. I see many arguments here that take it as an assumption that those who want pot legalized must make a convincing argument for why it must be deregulated. I say it’s un-American to think that way. Those in favor of restricting any freedom must make a convincing argument that it is necessary. And “it’s always been that way” is not a good argument to prevent something potentially faulty from being reviewed. If there is any significant number of people who think the law on pot should be under scrutiny, then it’s necessary to justify keeping it in existence, not justify why to take it out.

It’s strange to me how many people I’ve met outside the United States who would love to live here and enjoy the American way (the way the founding fathers meant it, the way the constitution is meant to protect it), and they can’t, while in the US so many of its citizens develop a basic mindset that has strayed so far from what made this country great.

# 68 brm said, on May 7th, 2009 at 3:49 pm

#64:

‘Wanting to do something “just because I want to” is not a very responsible argument.’

Since when? I *want* to smoke pot. What’s wrong with that? What is the difference between this and wanting to drink a beer? Other than your own personal bias against pot smoking, nothing.

You’ve offered no reason why pot should remain illegal past some insipid argument that, ‘just because we can make it legal doesn’t mean we should.’

What a pathetic argument.

“that means you always wanted to jump off of bridges because everyone else did”

Again, this is a position only a moron would take. Seriously.

This is an argument from someone who can’t find any good reason to support their position. No numbers, no figures, no medical studies, nothing. Just some stupid, incessantly repeated cliche that is really just a sly attempt at lumping all pot smokers together as juveniles.

“You might attend some night and listen to what damage alcohol has done to people’s lives.”

So I have to suffer because less than 1% of the population can’t handle their booze? How does that work?

‘Then you won’t be saying “we don’t have a problem with alcohol”’

People in AA have a problem with alcohol. Just about everyone else doesn’t.

# 69 brm said, on May 7th, 2009 at 4:01 pm

#66:

“I never got into the habit of drugs, so I am objective about it.”

I would argue that this makes you NOT objective about it. Otherwise, you’d realize that recreational use of most drugs is not a problem for most people.

Your argument is like saying a priest is good at giving marriage advice.

“When you do drugs, you don’t think there is anything wrong.”

Not hurting anyone else. Check. Enjoying in moderation, so I’m not hurting myself. Check.

Again, you believe that a mere sip of booze or a single toke off a joint causes harm. You’re in the minority. And you’re wrong.

“Its like being in an abusive household.”

Again with the loaded metaphors. It’s nothing like being in an abusive household.

“When you stop being in that culture and step outside. You will see just how much time, energy, money and stress”

Presumptuous.

I don’t hang out with addicts. I’m professionally employed. I spend more money on my cellphone than I do on drugs of any kind, including alcohol. I exercise regularly. I’ve never broken the law. I get along with my family. I’m college educated. I make charitable contributions.

And on and on. I’m also a typical recreational user. You just can’t believe that any upstanding person would ever drink or use drugs. Again, you’re wrong.

“We live in a connected world. What you do affects others. And what others do affects you.”

Why don’t we regulate birthing children, then – you’re all about costs to taxpayers, and one kid ends up costing you more than my drug use.

You might as well argue that no one have any privacy or be allowed to make their own decisions because everything is “connected.”

gag.

# 70 brm said, on May 7th, 2009 at 9:16 pm

#64:

‘Then you won’t be saying “we don’t have a problem with alcohol”.’

You misunderstand what I’m saying when I say ‘we shouldn’t have a problem.’ I don’t mean that alcohol doesn’t cause problems. I mean that we don’t have a problem with it being legal. As in, it’s not dangerous enough to outlaw.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!