Decrim Petition

[pogo]

Copenhagen anyone?

[Play Angry]

Most counterarguments have been conspiracy theories, moral condescension, and unfounded predictions of doom. Are you guys liberals arguing about climate change or conservatives who live and die by logic? Step it up and show some intellectual dexterity, folks.

[Kung Wu]

Copenhagen anyone?

I suppose, but really Redman gives a better buzz.

[Kung Wu]

Most counterarguments have been conspiracy theories, moral condescension, and unfounded predictions of doom. Are you guys liberals arguing about climate change or conservatives who live and die with logic? Step it up and show some intellectual dexterity, folks.

I could really use a good dose of global warming when I launch my addiction resort. The boost in crappy weather will have medical tourists flocking to my temperate, ocean regulated beach. So I am all in for industrial pollution, cocaine and meth. I need a good gateway drug like pot to get things rolling though, so let's get that crankin'.

Kidding aside, I have been following the Libertarian movement since I was a kid and was exposed to their platform at an early age. I was in favor of decriminalization (not legalization) back in the 90s -- but it was a terribly unpopular stance back then. I since have shifted a bit and am now on the fence. I still believe decriminalization is the right answer, but I think it should be a slow and cautious process where we watch a few states try it and learn what works and what doesn't.

And honestly I am much more concerned with the systemic infanticide that our society has somehow come to tolerate. The one litmus test that I believe all decent human beings should adopt is: Does this candidate reject tolerating the premediated killing of a human being whose heart is beating?

But that's a 'nother topic. I just bring it up because in the scheme of things decriminalization is low on my priority list of what I am looking for in leadership. I am okay with the process of decriminalization of pot taking a while.

[Play Angry]

I appreciate the thoughtful response KW, but that was also sort of a non-answer. Why do you kinda sorta support decriminalization, but only if it's done verrrrry slowly when it's already been decriminalized in ~1 out of every 3 states?

And as a self-professed fan of libertarianism, what are your justifications against legalization that outweigh the "stay out my biz" view of government by that group? Would those same justifications apply to banning alcohol, tobacco, and increased restrictions on food and beverage sales? If not, why?



I'm lobbing softballs here, someone take one out of the park.

[Kung Wu]

I appreciate the thoughtful response KW, but that was also sort of a non-answer. Why do you kinda sorta support decriminalization, but only if it's done verrrrry slowly when it's already been decriminalized in ~1 out of every 3 states?

And as a self-professed fan of libertarianism, what are your justifications against legalization that outweigh the "stay out my biz" view of government by that group? Would those same justifications apply to banning alcohol, tobacco, and increased restrictions on food and beverage sales? If not, why?



I'm lobbing softballs here, someone take one out of the park.

I wasn't addressing you because I'm not interested in arguing. I was just stating my point of view so that other posters on here can poke fun at me.

I can't help it that many states have rushed into this without taking a wait-and-see approach and benefiting from lessons from other states. Just because they have done that, doesn't make them right. It doesn't mean that they have done a good thing. They may have got it right though, but it won't be because they took advantage of being able to learn what works and what doesn't from other states.

There are more than two centuries of lessons regarding American's consumption of alcohol and tobacco, both legally and illegally; there's plenty of precedence with which to make an informed decision. Regarding alcohol, prohibition was tried and failed. The public has largely decided that the cons of alcoholism, bad behavior while being drunk by some, and increased costs to the public of medical care caused by those excessively consuming alcohol; are minimal enough that they do not outweigh the positive benefits of people that drink alcohol responsibly. Regarding tobacco, there has been a tremendous backlash mounting in recent times over smoking cigarettes due to the inherent right to breath clean air in a public place such as a restaurant and due to the very well known long term negative medical effects that cause insurance rates for everybody to substantially increase. So they are getting distinctive treatment because they have different risk/reward profiles. Marijuana will have a distinct risk/reward profile from both of those. We'll know soon enough what that profile looks like.

Restrictions on food and beverages is asinine and too stupid of a debate to have.

I am not a fan of legalization, I'm a proponent of decriminalization if done with serious thought behind it.

[Play Angry]

I thought when you quoted my post you were responding to me? I misunderstood apparently, but I'm sure you could see why. Apologies.

A couple quick responses, if you are open to them:

1. Regarding

the inherent right to breath clean air in a public place such as a restaurant

isn't a restaurant a private place of business? That would change the justification quite a bit.

2.

Restrictions on food and beverages is asinine and too stupid of a debate to have.

Is it? They are very real in America's biggest city right now, and advocates used many of the same reasons as are used for banning marijuana...which is why I brought it up. The insurance rate costs you discussed regarding tobacco are very relevant to that discussion since obesity is a very, very expensive problem right now. Note that I'm against the nanny state food restrictions- just pointing out that it isn't an absurd discussion like you pointed out. I'd like to hear why one is asinine and the other is not.



There are really well constructed arguments for banning things like marijuana. I think most of them use similar justifications that this board rails a lot against folks on the left for using on other issues, though.

[Kung Wu]

I thought when you quoted my post you were responding to me? I misunderstood apparently, but I'm sure you could see why. Apologies.

I was only quoting you for the jackass portion of my reply (the first paragraph). LOL

[Kung Wu]

1. Regarding isn't a restaurant a private place of business? That would change the justification quite a bit.

It's privately owned property but a "public accommodation". If you tried to have sex in a privately owned restaurant you would be charged with lewd and lascivious behavior, which is defined as "Publicly engaging in otherwise lawful sexual intercourse or sodomy with knowledge or reasonable anticipation that the participants are being viewed by others".

2. Is it?

Yes, it is completely stupid.

[MoValley John]

Pretty much agreed, although the need to control/regulate goes more to revenue than anything else IMO. Naturally a better, safer product with uniform standards and uniform tax treatment is in everyone's best interest. That will take some time but it will happen- recall how long it took the government to get a handle on alcohol and tobacco in the U.S. This is already on a much faster track.

There are reasonable arguments against legalization (few, if any, against decriminalization IMO), but far too many rely on their takeaways during the Bush I era infomercials as being even quasi-factual regarding the effects of use. I.e., the forecasts of droves of automobile fatalities was a bread and butter staple of the anti-legalization/decriminalization crowd and that argument has been shot to smithereens this year as those statistics are among the lowest in over a decade so far.

FWIW I don't smoke, so let's not go there in any responses (not really aimed at MVJ, just in general).

My comments on this topic are becoming more and more true.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/02/news...ado/index.html

As it sits now, the tax boom in Colorado is falling short because the pot dealers adapted and dropped prices. Also, if you really dig into this article, you will get an understanding as to why accidents didn't increase after recreational pot became legal- those that wanted to smoke pot began when medical Marijuana was legalized. There was no bump in pot sales or usage after recreational pot was legalized because the change in law didn't expand supply, demand or usage. Medical Marijuana legalization expanded supply, demand and usage.

I love it when I'm right!

[MoValley John]

And I LOVE this related story:
http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2014...ney/index.html
Only in California.

[Play Angry]

My comments on this topic are becoming more and more true.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/02/news/economy/marijuana-taxes-colorado/index.html

As it sits now, the tax boom in Colorado is falling short because the pot dealers adapted and dropped prices. Also, if you really dig into this article, you will get an understanding as to why accidents didn't increase after recreational pot became legal- those that wanted to smoke pot began when medical Marijuana was legalized. There was no bump in pot sales or usage after recreational pot was legalized because the change in law didn't expand supply, demand or usage. Medical Marijuana legalization expanded supply, demand and usage.

I love it when I'm right!

Seems like the revenue shortfall would be a non-issue if the industry became federally regulated and state laws were uniform, no? Coerce everyone into legal channels like we do with medicine, food, alcohol and tobacco.

If and until that happens, a dual market is pretty much inevitable.

[MoValley John]

Seems like the revenue shortfall would be a non-issue if the industry became federally regulated and state laws were uniform, no? Coerce everyone into legal channels like we do with medicine, food, alcohol and tobacco.

If and until that happens, a dual market is pretty much inevitable.

They still sell moonshine, right? Farmers sell unregulated sweetcorn and tomatoes at roadside stands out of the back of their pickups, right?

[Play Angry]

They still sell moonshine, right? Farmers sell unregulated sweetcorn and tomatoes at roadside stands out of the back of their pickups, right?

Moonshine bootlegging and illegal roadside stands represent an infinitesimal amount of activity in those industries.

[Aargh]

What we're doing now isn't working. Nixon started the "War on Drugs". In the 40+ yers tht war has been going on, it's cost federal and state governments over $1 trillion. That number is from a Harvard economist. Some of you will doubt the veracity of anything out of Harvard, because that's a bastion of Liberalism.

In 40+ years of the War on Drugs, we've seen no decrease in the use of the major illegal drugs - marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. There has been a decrease in the use of LSD - apparently no one is making that any more. We've seen crystal meth use rise from virtually none in 1971. We've seen the emergence of ecstasy and the abuse of prescriptions drugs, such as Xanax and pain killers appear and grow exponentially.

Since the War on Drugs was begun, we've seen the rise of drug cartels in South America and Mexico. We've seen urban gangs that are funded by selling illegal drugs. The import into and sale of illegal drugs in the USA has become so lucrative, that private armies can be raised and street gang leaders can become millionaires if they live long enough. The people making that money don't care if they kill someone. They're already breaking the law and subject to lengthy prison sentences, so killing someone is only a marginally more severe penalty if they're caught.

One problem with the Colorado implementation is that the legal sales are at a higher price than the illegal sellers were charging before the legal industry existed. That doesn't remove the illegal dealers, the illegal market, or the profits from the illegal markets.

Marijuana is incredibly easy to grow. 16 square feet per plant, some fertilizer, maybe some water, and that's about it for outdoor growth. The labor factor is identifying and eliminating the male plants. That part is commonly eliminated by planting clones of female plants so there are no males.

One plant will easily produce a pound of product. Retail in Colorado is running in the range of $200 - $400 an ounce, depending on the quantity purchased.

The legal pricing strategy is to be "just close enough" to the illegal dealers so that it's less likely customers will seek out the illegal dealers. That's not an effective strategy for eliminating the illegal dealers.

Right now, anyone who wants to do illegal drugs has no problem finding them. I think that if everything were legalized, the numbers of users wouldn't change by any statistically significant numbers. It would eliminate the drug cartels, the income source for street gangs, and greatly reduce prison populations.

The Libertarians and Tea Partyers out here should embrace this, because it would constitute a significant reduction in the government's interference with our personal lives and decisions. Or does that philosophy only apply when the government tells us we have to have health insurance?