[Vpoll] Marijuana, Weed, Pot

[Cackalacky]

? how many more traffic accidents will be had. How do the cops handle the driving while stoned?

NORML says not at all based on their studies.

 

[ACamp1900]

Could you imagine the smell of a car with that kind of interior??

 

[4irishnation]

NORML says not at all based on their studies.

WHUTT!!!! Democrats need to find a new group to do their studies.

 

[Cackalacky]

Could you imagine the smell of a car with that kind of interior??

Shag carpet, skunk, sweaty men... Yeah I can. Thanks for that.

 

[Cackalacky]

WHUTT!!!! Democrats need to find a new group to do their studies.

Democrats are not NORML... Much like your sigpic

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Democrats are not NORML... Much like your sigpic

The funniest thing is a lot of commercial growers are Libertarians

 

[Cackalacky]

The funniest thing is a lot of commercial growers are Libertarians

I am shocked by this.

 

[chicago51]

Snow ball is rolling. Unfortunately SC and probably NC too will refuse to despite any logical reason otherwise. It could be a massive cash crop here.

You'd think we'd be on it Illinois with a Dem supramajority and like Cali the stuff is already here. However instead of progressives we got corrupt Chicago machine democrats. We got the criminal justice union putting the cabosh on it.

Mike Madigan speaker of the Illinois General Assembly (House of Reps) is a piece of crap! Just had to get that off my chest.

 

[woolybug25]

? how many more traffic accidents will be had. How do the cops handle the driving while stoned?

The same way they deal with people driving on pain medication now. There is no data that shows that Colorado has had any increases in driving accidents. That's a completely false assumption you're making.

Also... Change your disgusting sig pic. It's stupid.

 

[chicago51]

Also... Change your disgusting sig pic. It's stupid.

Yes This!

Please!

 

[4irishnation]

The same way they deal with people driving on pain medication now. There is no data that shows that Colorado has had any increases in driving accidents. That's a completely false assumption you're making.

Also... Change your disgusting sig pic. It's stupid.

I never made an assumption. I was asking a question. Have you ever smoked weed? As a heterosexual Republican NRA member I am quit disappointed that my sig pic is offends you. I see that your sig is requesting a fellow Irish fan to take off his clothes and run his naked lap if ANYONE could enjoy watching a man suck on something of another man I figured it would be U!!!!

 

[ACamp1900]

 

[woolybug25]

I never made an assumption. I was asking a question. Have you ever smoked weed? As a heterosexual Republican NRA member I am quit disappointed that my sig pic is offends you. I see that your sig is requesting a fellow Irish fan to take off his clothes and run his naked lap if ANYONE could enjoy watching a man suck on something of another man I figured it would be U!!!!

What's your goal here, dude? Personally offend, troll the board, generally be a dick? You, your message and you troll behavior aren't needed. You have no actual point and are bringing zero value to the board. I hope the mods ban your sorry ass and you're welcome for the neg rep.

 

[Monk]

Also... Change your disgusting sig pic. It's stupid.

Agree. It's not funny, I don't know what you are going for there.

 

[RDU Irish]

Snow ball is rolling. Unfortunately SC and probably NC too will refuse to despite any logical reason otherwise. It could be a massive cash crop here.

20%+ unemployment rate in rural counties.... why would you try to find another way to create jobs there?

First step for NC is to sell off the ABC stores and put the liquor business in the hands of business where it belongs. Until that happens, hard to see pot going anywhere.

 

[wizards8507]

I never made an assumption. I was asking a question. Have you ever smoked weed? As a heterosexual Republican NRA member I am quit disappointed that my sig pic is offends you. I see that your sig is requesting a fellow Irish fan to take off his clothes and run his naked lap if ANYONE could enjoy watching a man suck on something of another man I figured it would be U!!!!

You're everything that's wrong with the Republican party. You're welcome to your notions of right and wrong but imposing your morality on others is not the way to go.

What distinguishes the [libertarian] from the conservative here is that, however profound his own spiritual beliefs, he will never regard himself as entitled to impose them on others and that for him the spiritual and the temporal are different sphere which ought not to be confused.

 

[IrishInFl]

I have a question: Is the question of whether marijuana should be legalized or stay illegal more of a political party based question, or an age based question?

Based on my own observations, it's a age based question. The generations that grew up in the "reefer madness" era of anti-marijuana propaganda are against it, while the majority of everyone else (including my father, whom is in his late fifties) is for legalizing marijuana.

 

[RDU Irish]

A true third party push by Libertarians would make Reps and Dems more honest. Instead moderate (i.e. realistic) Libertarians hide within the two party system and wing nuts ensure Libertarians become their own worst enemy.

Rand Paul is a great example IMO. More moderate and realistic than his father but I don't see him push a single social issue. Will that be his downfall in the republican primaries? Will he be able to stick to his guns and tell social conservatives their policies are just as bad as left wing social mandates? I'm not sure he can make it through a republican primary without selling out to some degree. I would almost rather see him position as Libertarian NOW and push for president than mess with the Republican primaries. So many are fed up with both parties that I think it could have legs.

If the Tea Party were able to take a big Libertarian twist and dump the bible bangers that want to impose morality, we might have a basis for progress. Unfortunately, those folks (particularly in the south) have used the Tea Party to somehow validate their social mandates.

 

[wizards8507]

I have a question: Is the question of whether marijuana should be legalized or stay illegal more of a political party based question, or an age based question?

Based on my own observations, it's a age based question. The generations that grew up in the "reefer madness" era of anti-marijuana propaganda are against it, while the majority of everyone else (including my father, whom is in his late fifties) is for legalizing marijuana.

Those are pretty much the same thing. Young people and hippies are for it and are generally democrats. Older people are against it and are generally Republicans.

The Democrat party is pretty solid in favor of legalization but this issue is a major division within the Republican party. The "establishment" wing is firmly in favor of current drug laws, while the "libertarian" Ron Paul wing (myself included) think that grown adults should be able to do whatever they want. There's a similar divide in the party regarding gay marriage. Ironically, the people who are accused of being the most "right wing" are the ones whose views most closely resemble those of the Democrats. Once you go far enough out into the right wing of constitutional conservatism, the views start to look a lot like left-wing libertarianism.

 

[GoIrish41]

I have a question: Is the question of whether marijuana should be legalized or stay illegal more of a political party based question, or an age based question?

Based on my own observations, it's a age based question. The generations that grew up in the "reefer madness" era of anti-marijuana propaganda are against it, while the majority of everyone else (including my father, whom is in his late fifties) is for legalizing marijuana.

I was born in the 60s, grew up in the 70s and came of age in the 80s. I think it should be legal for a host of reasons ... creates jobs, revenue source, reversing the trend of filling our prisons with people who commit a crime that hurts nobody, etc.

 

[wizards8507]

A true third party push by Libertarians would make Reps and Dems more honest. Instead moderate (i.e. realistic) Libertarians hide within the two party system and wing nuts ensure Libertarians become their own worst enemy.

Rand Paul is a great example IMO. More moderate and realistic than his father but I don't see him push a single social issue. Will that be his downfall in the republican primaries? Will he be able to stick to his guns and tell social conservatives their policies are just as bad as left wing social mandates? I'm not sure he can make it through a republican primary without selling out to some degree. I would almost rather see him position as Libertarian NOW and push for president than mess with the Republican primaries. So many are fed up with both parties that I think it could have legs.

If the Tea Party were able to take a big Libertarian twist and dump the bible bangers that want to impose morality, we might have a basis for progress. Unfortunately, those folks (particularly in the south) have used the Tea Party to somehow validate their social mandates.

I'm out of reps but ding ding ding ding. Another problem to consider is that all of the money is against the libertarian-minded candidate. Karl Rove Republicans will paint libertarianism as anarchy, while Democrats will paint it as right-wing extremism.

 

[wizards8507]

I was born in the 60s, grew up in the 70s and came of age in the 80s. I think it should be legal for a host of reasons ... creates jobs, revenue source, reversing the trend of filling our prisons with people who commit a crime that hurts nobody, etc.

Those all outcome-based reasons. You make it seem like it would be okay to ban things so long as they don't create jobs, revenue, etc.

How about standing on principle? It should be legal because... why should it be illegal in the first place? You're "initial state" is one in which you accept that everything is banned unless it has a good reason to be un-banned. Let's start in an intellectual place where individuals are their own masters and EVERYTHING is legal unless there's a damn good reason for it not to be.

 

[RDU Irish]

I have a question: Is the question of whether marijuana should be legalized or stay illegal more of a political party based question, or an age based question?

Based on my own observations, it's a age based question. The generations that grew up in the "reefer madness" era of anti-marijuana propaganda are against it, while the majority of everyone else (including my father, whom is in his late fifties) is for legalizing marijuana.

I think it is a personal liberty question. Libs who want a nanny state are OK with gubment saving them from bad decisions, and drugs are bad hm-Kay. Social conservatives want gubment out of their life, unless the rules are pushing their morals on others. Unfortunately, the economics of it are ignored by most. Libs never worry about cost and social conservatives will try to win a war at any cost.

The same folks that are OK with a higher powered drug cocktail prescribed by their doctor want people thrown in jail for a little MJ? True hypocrisy and PC is the only reason more don't stand up against it.

 

[GoIrish41]

A true third party push by Libertarians would make Reps and Dems more honest. Instead moderate (i.e. realistic) Libertarians hide within the two party system and wing nuts ensure Libertarians become their own worst enemy.

Rand Paul is a great example IMO. More moderate and realistic than his father but I don't see him push a single social issue. Will that be his downfall in the republican primaries? Will he be able to stick to his guns and tell social conservatives their policies are just as bad as left wing social mandates? I'm not sure he can make it through a republican primary without selling out to some degree. I would almost rather see him position as Libertarian NOW and push for president than mess with the Republican primaries. So many are fed up with both parties that I think it could have legs.

If the Tea Party were able to take a big Libertarian twist and dump the bible bangers that want to impose morality, we might have a basis for progress. Unfortunately, those folks (particularly in the south) have used the Tea Party to somehow validate their social mandates.

I think this idea has merit, but Rand Paul is not the guy to execute it. At the end of the day, people have to like a candidate enough to vote for him or her. Rand Paul is simply not that guy, IMHO. I voted for Ross Perot back in the day because he was the only candidate talking about the topics I thought were most important. All these years later, those unresolved issues he identified are still the topics of political debate. In retrospect, Perot was just a little too kooky for Americans no matter how right he was about the issues. It all starts with a candidate that comes off as knowledgeable, trustworthy and likeable. Given adequate funding, I think a candidate who scores high on all those tests may have a legitimate chance at making a 3rd party run, but it would be an uphill battle for sure.

 

[RDU Irish]

I was born in the 60s, grew up in the 70s and came of age in the 80s. I think it should be legal for a host of reasons ... creates jobs, revenue source, reversing the trend of filling our prisons with people who commit a crime that hurts nobody, etc.

I would argue they are potentially hurting themselves (just like alcohol and cigs).... but hurting yourself should not be illegal!! Personal freedom is the overriding principle. However economics make the war on pot completely indefensible.

 

[GoIrish41]

Those all outcome-based reasons. You make it seem like it would be okay to ban things so long as they don't create jobs, revenue, etc.

How about standing on principle? It should be legal because... why should it be illegal in the first place? You're "initial state" is one in which you accept that everything is banned unless it has a good reason to be un-banned. Let's start in an intellectual place where individuals are their own masters and EVERYTHING is legal unless there's a damn good reason for it not to be.

Didn't want to sound like too much of a hippy so I just used "etc." I don't disagree at all about standing on principle. Of course it should not be illegal, and people should have the right to use the product so long as it isn't hurting anyone else. Just because I used those examples does not mean I think the current laws are bullshiit and that such laws infringe on the personal freedoms of people.

 

[GoIrish41]

I would argue they are potentially hurting themselves (just like alcohol and cigs).... but hurting yourself should not be illegal!! Personal freedom is the overriding principle. However economics make the war on pot completely indefensible.

I think we are in complete agreement.

 

[wizards8507]

We read this book in my "Philosophy of Law" class at ND. I'm not sure why it's $56, but if you can find a used copy and like reading academic literature, it's worth a read. The PDF below is an article summarizing the main points from the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Rights-Cambri...d=1394117514&sr=8-1&keywords=drugs+and+rights

http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/I..._Four_Points_about_Drug_Decriminalization.pdf

This timely and important book is the first serious work of philosophy to address the question: Do adults have a moral right to use drugs for recreational purposes? Many critics of the "war on drugs" denounce law enforcement as counterproductive and ineffective. Douglas Husak argues that the "war on drugs" violates the moral rights of adults who want to use drugs for pleasure, and that criminal laws against such use are incompatible with moral rights. This is not a polemical tract but a scrupulously argued work of philosophy that takes full account of all available data concerning drug use in the United States today. The author is careful to describe the properties a recreational drug would have to possess before the state would be justified in prohibiting it. Since criminal laws against the use of recreational drugs are justified neither by the harm users cause to themselves nor by the harm users cause to each other, Professor Husak concludes that such laws are, in almost all cases, unjustified. This book will be of particular interest to philosophers in applied ethics and philosophers of law, but it will prove provocative reading for anyone with a serious concern in the issue of drug use and drug control.

 

[wizards8507]

I think we are in complete agreement.

Reps.

Rand Paul 2016

 

[Cackalacky]

Libertarians are 100% right on some issues. On the majority of issues, they just have no idea they live in a society. I think libertarianism (in its current state) is a fad.