Feds vow marijuana enforcement regardless of California vote, WSJ ...H/T Matt Drudge

[oak1971]

You chose.... poorly.

Forty years of policy banning marijuana has not curtailed its usage. Forty years of bad policy have financed criminal empires that have grown into legitimate government threats in neighboring countries. People like you have stood by and watched the government abuse its citizens, have applauded the militarization of police enforcement, have lost the plot in pursuit of your own zealotry.

Bad law is bad law. That you so willingly would put your fellow citizens away for refusing to follow dangerous policy strikes me as cruel and borderline inhuman. Of course, I expect empathy from humans, and seldom see more than brutalism, personified.

Get the darn law changed. Till then, follow it. THC deprivation is not inhuman. That argument is silly at best.

 

[Citizen]

Don't like it? Too bad. Get the law changed. Till then, it's criminal.

More evasion?

The whole reason we're discussing it is because it is illegal, we think it should not be illegal, and we're working to change minds in order to gather more support for un-criminalizing it.

Your comment is nothing more than saying what we already know.

Why don't you just answer his question, which is now also my question to you, and explain your position. If your position is so well thought out, solidly grounded, and comprehensive in what it takes into account, it should be easy to win others to your point. And, educate them, too.

So, how about it?

 

[Tawnos]

Get the darn law changed. Till then, follow it. THC deprivation is not inhuman. That argument is silly at best.

Hard to get the law changed when there are a large number of a-holes that have no problem locking people up for consuming an intoxicant.

 

[oak1971]

I am opposed to all drugs and think they harm society. I have no problem with all of them staying illegal. Call me all the names you like, I really don't care.

 

[Coded-Dude]

prop 19 = 16% reporting
56.4% = NO
43.6% = YES

 

[Coded-Dude]

I am opposed to all drugs and think they harm society. I have no problem with all of them staying illegal. Call me all the names you like, I really don't care.

so you don't........drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, take vitamins/aspirin/ibuprofen/caffeine/antibiotics/dextromethorphan/antacids or any other sort of "drug?"

what is your definition of "drugs"

 

[Citizen]

I am opposed to all drugs and think they harm society. I have no problem with all of them staying illegal. Call me all the names you like, I really don't care.

Oh. Well, now we might be getting somewhere.

You think that if something is harmful, it equates with government power to prevent it?

Obviously, you do not hold this as an absolute, otherwise you would believe guns should be outlawed. So, how do you determine which harms should receive government intervention? Where do you draw the line on how much harm triggers legitimate government intervention?

And, do you weigh the collateral-damage type harm from government intervening?

 

[XD40coyote]

I am opposed to all guns and think they harm society. I have no problem with all of them being illegal. Call me all the names you like, I really don't care.

There, I fixed it for you.

 

[sultan62]

oak1971, I also typically oppose drug use. However, I absolutely support decriminalization. What business is it of the government, specifically the federal government, to criminalize?

Also, I can't help but notice that you haven't answered what at least three here including myself think is a very good question, so I'm also gonna throw my hat into the ring to ask the question:

Would you commit violence against your fellow man to stop them from using something recreationally?

 

[oak1971]

I don't need to adhere to your orthodoxy. I will make up my own mind, issue by issue. I don't use violence against anyone. Goodbye.

 

[Tawnos]

I don't need to adhere to your orthodoxy. I will make up my own mind, issue by issue. I don't use violence against anyone. Goodbye.

You do use violence by proxy when you vote to incarcerate those who are using an intoxicant you, personally, don't want to use. You authorize such violence despite there being no requirement that usage be a danger to you or anyone other than the user.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Hard to get the law changed when there are a large number of a-holes that have no problem locking people up for consuming an intoxicant.

Let's not forget that as a 'democracy', that a slight majority can tyrannize the minority by outlawing harmless substances or actions they don't like because of personal taste (although the illegalization of this substance was a huge lobbying effort by timber, tobacco).

This is why our founding fathers never meant for us to be a democracy but a republic where rights reign supreme. Unfortunately that is missed by most "in" our current system, from small local legislature up to the federal level and in our court systems across the land.

 

[END_THE_FED]

I oppose all drugs for recreational use. If there is a legitimate medical use, fine. I'm not convinced weed qualifies.

Do you include alcohol and nicotine in your "against all drugs for recreational use."?

You may be against such things and I respect your choice. Do you think that the government has the right to make that decision for us? Do you trust them with that power?



(this is not meant to bait or insult you. It is just an honest inquiry )

 

[eye95]

...Do you think that the government has the right to make that decision for us? Do you trust them with that power?...

I have no objection to State and local governments exercising such power. If that power were exclusively exercised at that level, some jurisdictions would have tight rules, and some would have loose rules. There would be options all along the spectrum.

That provides us with the opportunity to vote with our feet. (I'd choose a locality that restricted drugs, pornography, and prostitution.)

To me, this actually maximizes Liberty. We can live in a community that shares our moral values while not forcing folks to live where they find those moral values oppressive.

Federalism promotes Liberty on the individual and community level.

(Oh, BTW, I would expect such a system to highlight the relative value of communities that have high moral standards and those that have relaxed moral standards.)

 

[END_THE_FED]

I have no objection to State and local governments exercising such power. If that power were exclusively exercised at that level, some jurisdictions would have tight rules, and some would have loose rules. There would be options all along the spectrum.

That provides us with the opportunity to vote with our feet. (I'd choose a locality that restricted drugs, pornography, and prostitution.)

To me, this actually maximizes Liberty. We can live in a community that shares our moral values while not forcing folks to live where they find those moral values oppressive.

Federalism promotes Liberty on the individual and community level.

(Oh, BTW, I would expect such a system to highlight the relative value of communities that have high moral standards and those that have relaxed moral standards.)

but what is the problem/danger with the use of drugs (be it alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, or whatever) in and of its self, that justifies a government at any level (local,fed,or state), to remove the free choice of an individual.

Using the hand of government and the force of "law" to takeaway the free choice of an individual is a very serious thing.
It should not be done unless that choice will interfere with the rights and liberty of another.
Theft, rape, murder, assault, fraud are choices/behaviors that are, in and of themselves a threat to another individuals rights and liberty. I fail to see how drug use, (or the porn and prostitution you mentioned) meets these standards.

There is no such thing as responsible Theft or Rape. There is such thing as responsible drug use.

Lets not punish the responsible individuals, for the actions of the irresponsible.

 

[eye95]

You would clearly vote with your feet for a community that would tolerate such behavior. More power to you. I wouldn't.

To me, that's Liberty.

 

[Tawnos]

You would clearly vote with your feet for a community that would tolerate such behavior. More power to you. I wouldn't.

To me, that's Liberty.

Except I own a home in a place where the opportunity cost of moving away exceeds that which is acceptable.

 

[Coded-Dude]

In all honesty, I think the people's vote was a bit skewed. While Fox News inferred that the vote failed to pass because lazy pot smokers were too high to get off the couch and vote for it, I think that virtually every drug dealer in the state voted no. Why would they vote to lose money?

On another note Assembly Bill 390 has already passed with a 4-3 vote, so all Tom Ammiano has to do is reintroduce it so he can then file it with the Health Committee. He specifically stated earlier this year that he would wait until after the November elections to see what the people did before trying to push the bill through. Unless of course he lost his seat......