Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on December 18, 2013, 10:51:22 AM
Funny, how they 'pick and choose' their HANDS OFF GOVERNMENT intrusions.  Pot and uteruses--they're all in!

...said someone who is OK with killing babies, yet against the death penalty for violent murderers proven beyond reasonable doubt of their crimes, and supports the theft of individuals' private property at the point of a gun, and forces innocent people to pay money to insurance companies for being alive.

You are a weirdo, and need help.

Quote from: Egg on December 18, 2013, 02:08:54 PM
This is an all or nothing approach which I think hurts policy making.  Pot is practically harmless from a social safety point of view, and it's a matter of liberty and keeping government in its place that we should make it legal for adults to use it.  We know enough about the drug and its effects to make that decision. 

Other drugs should be considered on their own merits or demerits.   

I hope you don't play lawn darts.
The point is "Why don't the Republicans pursue the legalization of pot?".
The answer is that in no way, would any good be reaped by the Republicans pursuing that agenda. At best, it would simply fracture the party further as their values get more muddled by legalizing a controlled substance, whatever your opinion of said substance.

Quote from: taxed on December 18, 2013, 02:25:56 PM
...said someone who is OK with killing babies, yet against the death penalty for violent murderers proven beyond reasonable doubt of their crimes, and supports the theft of individuals' private property at the point of a gun, and forces innocent people to pay money to insurance companies for being alive.

You are a weirdo, and need help.

Well, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, it is a two way street. Anyone who supports smaller government in one area, but bigger government in another, simply on the basis of their own personal preference, is a hypocrite. That's why I don't consider "conservatives" who are against the decriminalization of pot to be real conservatives.

Quote from: grace_note on December 18, 2013, 02:31:50 PM
Well, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, it is a two way street. Anyone who supports smaller government in one area, but bigger government in another, simply on the basis of their own personal preference, is a hypocrite. That's why I don't consider "conservatives" who are against the decriminalization of pot to be real conservatives.

Last time I checked, conservatives were for smaller government.

Quote from: grace_note on December 18, 2013, 02:31:50 PM
Well, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, it is a two way street. Anyone who supports smaller government in one area, but bigger government in another, simply on the basis of their own personal preference, is a hypocrite. That's why I don't consider "conservatives" who are against the decriminalization of pot to be real conservatives.

Conservatives still believe in Govt, just not overbearing govt.
States rights and all that.

Quote from: taxed on December 18, 2013, 02:35:37 PM
Last time I checked, conservatives were for smaller government.

Exactly. What's the small government angle? At best, you'd get an even trade of law enforcement to market regulation.

Quote from: Ulsterking on December 18, 2013, 02:42:18 PM
Exactly. What's the small government angle? At best, you'd get an even trade of law enforcement to market regulation.

Explain...

Quote from: Ulsterking on December 18, 2013, 02:31:41 PM
I hope you don't play lawn darts.
The point is "Why don't the Republicans pursue the legalization of pot?".
The answer is that in no way, would any good be reaped by the Republicans pursuing that agenda. At best, it would simply fracture the party further as their values get more muddled by legalizing a controlled substance, whatever your opinion of said substance.

And my point to you is:  why should Republicans not pursue the agenda of legalizing pot, if in fact it's the party of small government, fiscal restraint, personal liberty, personal responsibility and common sense?  When we know that legalizing pot is no more a call to legalize other drugs than keeping alcohol legal is, and does not open a genie's bottle of societal addiction? 

You've proven what I've described elsewhere in this thread, that the debate around pot legalization now has far more to do with fighting the culture war than the issue itself. 

Quote from: Egg on December 18, 2013, 02:48:47 PM
And my point to you is:  why should Republicans not pursue the agenda of legalizing pot, if in fact it's the party of small government, fiscal restraint, personal liberty, personal responsibility and common sense?  When we know that legalizing pot is no more a call to legalize other drugs than keeping alcohol legal is, and does not open a genie's bottle of societal addiction? 

You've proven what I've described elsewhere in this thread, that the debate around pot legalization now has far more to do with fighting the culture war than the issue itself.

Why would there need to be a law to make it legal?  Why not just let freedom happen?

Quote from: taxed on December 18, 2013, 02:50:06 PM
Why would there need to be a law to make it legal?  Why not just let freedom happen?

In this instance there actually has to be the removal of a law just to make freedom happen.   Currently, when grown adults just let freedom happen, they get put in jail for it. 

Quote from: taxed on December 18, 2013, 02:43:35 PM
Explain...

Let's say you lift the Federal ban on MJ. The DEA now gets to funnel whatever it spends on MJ enforcement into the other drugs. Their budget will not contract. Meanwhile, the decision is kicked to the states, and some legalize, and some don't. So the states that don't still spend what they always spend on drug enforcement, maybe more to combat interstate bootlegging. For the legal states, you now have a brand new commodity to commercialize which requires regulation at both state and Federal levels. At the very least, the FDA, IRS, and their local approximates will want more funds to eyeball the farms and pot shops.

Quote from: Ulsterking on December 18, 2013, 03:03:26 PM
Let's say you lift the Federal ban on MJ. The DEA now gets to funnel whatever it spends on MJ enforcement into the other drugs. Their budget will not contract. Meanwhile, the decision is kicked to the states, and some legalize, and some don't. So the states that don't still spend what they always spend on drug enforcement, maybe more to combat interstate bootlegging. For the legal states, you now have a brand new commodity to commercialize which requires regulation at both state and Federal levels. At the very least, the FDA, IRS, and their local approximates will want more funds to eyeball the farms and pot shops.

Gotcha...

Quote from: Egg on December 18, 2013, 02:48:47 PM
And my point to you is:  why should Republicans not pursue the agenda of legalizing pot, if in fact it's the party of small government, fiscal restraint, personal liberty, personal responsibility and common sense?  When we know that legalizing pot is no more a call to legalize other drugs than keeping alcohol legal is, and does not open a genie's bottle of societal addiction? 

You've proven what I've described elsewhere in this thread, that the debate around pot legalization now has far more to do with fighting the culture war than the issue itself.

Okay. Why should Republicans not pursue a lift of the Federal ban?
Because they don't need the damage they'll suffer for doing it. If there were not any negative repercussions to the move, the Democrats would have lifted the ban eons ago as a duck shot against the Republicans. And your small government angle is an albatross. The trade off from law enforcement to market regulation would be even at best.

My opinion is tainted by the early-70's-ish romance of illegal weed-commerce. 

Besides, it should be a State-by-State issue.   

Quote from: Ulsterking on December 18, 2013, 03:12:27 PM
Okay. Why should Republicans not pursue a lift of the Federal ban?
Because they don't need the damage they'll suffer for doing it. If there were not any negative repercussions to the move, the Democrats would have lifted the ban eons ago as a duck shot against the Republicans. And your small government angle is an albatross. The trade off from law enforcement to market regulation would be even at best.

It's not clear what "damage" Republicans would suffer - the "damage" of conceding to reality?  (And by the way, Democratic politicians are pretty anti-pot at this time too.) 

I also don't buy the argument that a reduction of the cost of policing illegal pot use is merely taken up by the cost of regulating the legal pot market.  It costs a lot more to prosecute and jail pot smokers than ensuring that a shop is well lit and not placed near a school, and those shops are taxed to support the regulation of the market.  Your argument is like saying we're going to outlaw new, harmless technology because it costs too much to regulate it. 

And of course, in terms of liberty there is much more at stake:  the issue of the state imprisoning and ruining the lives of adult citizens for doing no more than smoking pot, i.e., "pursuing happiness" in a manner which harms nobody, should be at least as much of a concern to conservatives as the burden placed on a regulatory body, shouldn't it?