Like lifting the federal ban. This is such a knockout issue for them, I don't know why they don't embrace it with open arms. The ban on marijuana exists because of cronyism, which is what the Democrat party is known for. Likewise Obama has come out in staunch opposition to decriminalizing pot. This would help get in the younger college age voting base.
But this wouldn't just be pandering, there's an ideological reason for them to support it. It would be in line with the Republicans' smaller government position. Because of New York City banning large drinks and fast food, people are beginning to realize that the government has no business banning things just because they think it's for our own good: we're all adults, right? Let us reap the consequences of our decisions.I think this would be a step in the right direction for the Republican party to be seen as the smaller government party.
Plus wasn't it Democrats who banned alcohol?
So what do you think? Do you think this would be a good move for the Republican party?
Quote from: grace_note on December 18, 2013, 07:33:28 AM
Like lifting the federal ban. This is such a knockout issue for them, I don't know why they don't embrace it with open arms. The ban on marijuana exists because of cronyism, which is what the Democrat party is known for. Likewise Obama has come out in staunch opposition to decriminalizing pot. This would help get in the younger college age voting base.
But this wouldn't just be pandering, there's an ideological reason for them to support it. It would be in line with the Republicans' smaller government position. Because of New York City banning large drinks and fast food, people are beginning to realize that the government has no business banning things just because they think it's for our own good: we're all adults, right? Let us reap the consequences of our decisions.I think this would be a step in the right direction for the Republican party to be seen as the smaller government party.
Plus wasn't it Democrats who banned alcohol?
So what do you think? Do you think this would be a good move for the Republican party?
I don't think they should make this an issue. While I don't have a personal problem with it much of the base does. It looks like a RINO issue to me.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 18, 2013, 07:43:41 AM
I don't think they should make this an issue. While I don't have a personal problem with it much of the base does. It looks like a RINO issue to me.
Aren't the Republicans in favor of smaller government, though? It seems like it'd be right in line with the Republicans' core values, which is why I'm surprised they haven't gotten behind it.
Whatever the arguments are, it still costs a fortune to prosecute and jail offenders.
Quote from: grace_note on December 18, 2013, 07:33:28 AM
Like lifting the federal ban. This is such a knockout issue for them, I don't know why they don't embrace it with open arms. The ban on marijuana exists because of cronyism, which is what the Democrat party is known for. Likewise Obama has come out in staunch opposition to decriminalizing pot. This would help get in the younger college age voting base.
But this wouldn't just be pandering, there's an ideological reason for them to support it. It would be in line with the Republicans' smaller government position. Because of New York City banning large drinks and fast food, people are beginning to realize that the government has no business banning things just because they think it's for our own good: we're all adults, right? Let us reap the consequences of our decisions.I think this would be a step in the right direction for the Republican party to be seen as the smaller government party.
Plus wasn't it Democrats who banned alcohol?
So what do you think? Do you think this would be a good move for the Republican party?
Why, is it not a states rights issue? Let the states take the lead on this.
Don't fall for the illusion that we need to take on lib issues, rather use their failures against them.
Quote from: Solar on December 18, 2013, 08:07:06 AM
Why, is it not a states rights issue? Let the states take the lead on this.
Don't fall for the illusion that we need to take on lib issues, rather use their failures against them.
Wait, lib as in liberal? I didn't even know this was a liberal issue, especially since most of the Democrats in power are so firmly against it. I always assumed libertarians and conservatives were the ones who wanted it decriminalized.
So in this case, liberals actually happen to be in favor of something more oriented toward smaller government? I never knew they had it in them :P
Quote from: grace_note on December 18, 2013, 08:23:16 AM
Wait, lib as in liberal? I didn't even know this was a liberal issue, especially since most of the Democrats in power are so firmly against it. I always assumed libertarians and conservatives were the ones who wanted it decriminalized.
So in this case, liberals actually happen to be in favor of something more oriented toward smaller government? I never knew they had it in them :P
No, you misunderstood, it's the left pushing the issue and framing it as if the right is against it.
That's how they work, and if it plays into their hands, they run with it.
See Colorado.
I firmly and completely agree. The recent referendums in Colorado and Washington indicate that, at least in those parts of the nation, public sentiment is in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. Colorado has become somewhat of a bellwether of national politics, and while I'm not familiar with nationwide polling and other information off the top of my head, my guess would be that there is increased pro-legalization sentiment across diverse sections of the country.
This is a small-government issue, rather than a "liberal" or "conservative" issue. True, a "classical liberal" would support it, but MANY, if not most, of the incumbent Democrats are not "classical liberals". A small-government conservative would support it too, but many of the conservatives in office are social-conservative neo-cons. Because of these two factors, the issue hasn't gotten much of anywhere on the national stage.
Whichever party can capitalize on the issue will benefit, I would think. If the GOP embraces it, it will help with young voters, voters who are fiscally conservative and socially moderate/liberal, and it will deny the Democrats an issue.
Quote from: grace_note on December 18, 2013, 07:33:28 AM
Like lifting the federal ban. This is such a knockout issue for them, I don't know why they don't embrace it with open arms. The ban on marijuana exists because of cronyism, which is what the Democrat party is known for. Likewise Obama has come out in staunch opposition to decriminalizing pot. This would help get in the younger college age voting base.
But this wouldn't just be pandering, there's an ideological reason for them to support it. It would be in line with the Republicans' smaller government position. Because of New York City banning large drinks and fast food, people are beginning to realize that the government has no business banning things just because they think it's for our own good: we're all adults, right? Let us reap the consequences of our decisions.I think this would be a step in the right direction for the Republican party to be seen as the smaller government party.
Plus wasn't it Democrats who banned alcohol?
So what do you think? Do you think this would be a good move for the Republican party?
I'm conservative, and not against it. I'm against the Federal government interfering when it should be states issue. Don't fall for lib propaganda like we're outside your house with bibles and pitch forks ready to burn you at the stake if you smoke weed. States have plenty of government to deal with their own issues.
Decriminalizing or outright legalization must be a state issue and not federal, and absolutely no different than state regulation of other controlled substances. It should be put up for public referendum and politicians regardless of party be obliged to follow voter wishes, not play back-door games.
Quote from: grace_note on December 18, 2013, 07:33:28 AM
Like lifting the federal ban. This is such a knockout issue for them, I don't know why they don't embrace it with open arms. The ban on marijuana exists because of cronyism, which is what the Democrat party is known for. Likewise Obama has come out in staunch opposition to decriminalizing pot. This would help get in the younger college age voting base.
But this wouldn't just be pandering, there's an ideological reason for them to support it. It would be in line with the Republicans' smaller government position. Because of New York City banning large drinks and fast food, people are beginning to realize that the government has no business banning things just because they think it's for our own good: we're all adults, right? Let us reap the consequences of our decisions.I think this would be a step in the right direction for the Republican party to be seen as the smaller government party.
Plus wasn't it Democrats who banned alcohol?
So what do you think? Do you think this would be a good move for the Republican party?
Funny, how they 'pick and choose' their HANDS OFF GOVERNMENT intrusions. Pot and uteruses--they're all in!
We should be proud of our stoners.
Quote from: darroll on December 18, 2013, 10:59:37 AM
We should be proud of our stoners.
Well, more like we should be proud of the people who have the self restraint not to become stoners, without the need for laws to tell them not to do it.
Quote from: grace_note on December 18, 2013, 07:33:28 AM
Like lifting the federal ban. This is such a knockout issue for them, I don't know why they don't embrace it with open arms. The ban on marijuana exists because of cronyism, which is what the Democrat party is known for. Likewise Obama has come out in staunch opposition to decriminalizing pot. This would help get in the younger college age voting base.
But this wouldn't just be pandering, there's an ideological reason for them to support it. It would be in line with the Republicans' smaller government position. Because of New York City banning large drinks and fast food, people are beginning to realize that the government has no business banning things just because they think it's for our own good: we're all adults, right? Let us reap the consequences of our decisions.I think this would be a step in the right direction for the Republican party to be seen as the smaller government party.
Plus wasn't it Democrats who banned alcohol?
So what do you think? Do you think this would be a good move for the Republican party?
The answer is simple: fear. There are enough voters with an irrational fear of pot to make it too dangerous for politicians to take the rational position of wanting to legalize it. There is still too much risk for politicians to be pro-legalization, while there is not enough pain in being against it.
But it's amazing how rational, pro-legalization and states' rights many ex-governors, ex-chiefs of police, ex-judges and others get once they retire.
Thankfully the cracks in the dam are growing very quickly and we will see a "sudden" transfer of the issue from the feds to the states, who will be able to make up their own minds as they see fit.
Quote from: Solar on December 18, 2013, 08:31:19 AM
No, you misunderstood, it's the left pushing the issue and framing it as if the right is against it.
That's how they work, and if it plays into their hands, they run with it.
See Colorado.
By all polling, it certainly appears conservatives are much more anti-legalization than liberals. Here's a Gallup poll from way back in 2005. Though the overall numbers have been changing since then, I'm sure the fundamentals are the same:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who-supports-marijuana-legalization.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who-supports-marijuana-legalization.aspx)
You'll see regionally (the South), by age (older), by church attendance (weekly church goers) and political self-identification ("conservative") conservatives are the ones who are most against legalization. While young, Godless, Left Coast liberals tend to be most for it.
Quote from: Egg on December 18, 2013, 11:18:46 AM
By all polling, it certainly appears conservatives are much more anti-legalization than liberals. Here's a Gallup poll from way back in 2005. Though the overall numbers have been changing since then, I'm sure the fundamentals are the same:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who-supports-marijuana-legalization.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who-supports-marijuana-legalization.aspx)
You'll see regionally (the South), by age (older), by church attendance (weekly church goers) and political self-identification ("conservative") conservatives are the ones who are most against legalization. While young, Godless, Left Coast liberals tend to be most for it.
Note the absence of a States Right question, this one was geared towards a Federal law/action, completely usurping the Right of the State to decide if it wants to take on the headache associated with such a power grab.
Conservatives tend to view the issue deeper than the left, the left usually has a knee jerk emotional reaction.
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!
Sometimes there are such things as morals, ethics, character, and values.
Though I know that none are required for any of your beliefs.
And I'm all for making all of these into states' issues. Let people like you move to and wallow in the sewage of states with no religion, free abortion on demand, no drug laws.......just streets and ditches full of people screwing and relieving themselves and getting high every possible way.
And the rest of us could live in states that have their own values.
Quote from: Solar on December 18, 2013, 11:47:50 AM
Note the absence of a States Right question, this one was geared towards a Federal law/action, completely usurping the Right of the State to decide if it wants to take on the headache associated with such a power grab.
Conservatives tend to view the issue deeper than the left, the left usually has a knee jerk emotional reaction.
If the question was "Do you believe the federal government should defer to the states on policy?" we'd see overwhelming support from conservatives. But as you note, that wasn't the question. The question was simply if one supports pot legalization, and conservatives are clearly against it. One has to assume, therefore, that if it shows up on states ballots that it would be voted down by conservatives. And where such state votes have recently occurred, it has been conservatives who've been against it.
Okay, the Republicans legalize purchase and use of old Mary Jane.
Congratulations, now you get start the debate all over again with the next least offensive drug.
There's more than one reason why marijuana is known as the "gateway" drug.
Quote from: Ulsterking on December 18, 2013, 12:32:53 PM
Okay, the Republicans legalize purchase and use of old Mary Jane.
Congratulations, now you get start the debate all over again with the next least offensive drug.
There's more than one reason why marijuana is known as the "gateway" drug.
lol, the only "gateway" is the one to approval for more and more filthy behaviors. Always "the next one" ready for roll-out.
But that's probably what you were saying !
Just like abortion. It started as first trimester, "could never go beyond that". Now we've slid all the way through late-term, partial-birth, and Gosnell-flavored infanticide. Make no mistake, the filthy progressives have China-style child-murder as a goal. Whatever helps the socialist-communist model take shape.
Quote from: grace_note on December 18, 2013, 07:33:28 AM
Plus wasn't it Democrats who banned alcohol?
I looked that up once; Prohibition was a part of the Progressive movement. It started with a few ridiculously tiny excise taxes, and in only a few years had become a complete nationwide ban on everything. Then the government "generously" gave one millennia-old right back to the people -- who gushed with gratitude.
But, as Liberaltarians constantly remind us, it would be insane and idiotic to make an issue of this now. Get rid of Socialism FIRST, then drugs and a thousand other problems will suddenly become infinitely easier to deal with.
Until and unless that happens, legal drugs and a Welfare state are like matches and a powder keg.
This is an issue that the heart of is a simple thing, "Life, Liberty and property". If a grown up adult wants to grow a little weed, or chew some coca leaves or raise some poppies on his/her property it's nobodies business but theirs. PERIOD.
Quote from: Ulsterking on December 18, 2013, 12:32:53 PM
Okay, the Republicans legalize purchase and use of old Mary Jane.
Congratulations, now you get start the debate all over again with the next least offensive drug.
There's more than one reason why marijuana is known as the "gateway" drug.
That marijuana is a "gateway drug" is a myth:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana (http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana)
It's long been understood as a myth, but there are many Interests who benefit by it being illegal: the cops and sherrifs' unions, the prison guards' unions, the prison industry, and all the various industries which serve law enforcement. Not to mention politicians running for reelection and pandering to their constituency that they are "tough on law and order!"
It's an offense to every notion of liberty that adult citizens can be locked up by the state and have their lives ruined for wanting to get stoned on marijuana. We're not talking about crack or some kind of agent that so disables the person that he becomes a menace to society - such as alcohol, for instance. This is so well understood by now that the stereotype of the stoner is a giggling guy with the munchies, not a violent or ruined heroin zombie.
To me the question of marijuana legalization is a test of whether or not the American electorate is capable of dealing logically and sanely with an issue which has become clearly much more a stand-in for our culture war, than an issue of public safety.
Quote from: Egg on December 18, 2013, 01:23:14 PM
That marijuana is a "gateway drug" is a myth:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana (http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana)
It's long been understood as a myth, but there are many Interests who benefit by it being illegal: the cops and sherrifs' unions, the prison guards' unions, the prison industry, and all the various industries which serve law enforcement. Not to mention politicians running for reelection and pandering to their constituency that they are "tough on law and order!"
It's an offense to every notion of liberty that adult citizens can be locked up by the state and have their lives ruined for wanting to get stoned on marijuana. We're not talking about crack or some kind of agent that so disables the person that he becomes a menace to society - such as alcohol, for instance. This is so well understood by now that the stereotype of the stoner is a giggling guy with the munchies, not a violent or ruined heroin zombie.
To me the question of marijuana legalization is a test of whether or not the American electorate is capable of dealing logically and sanely with an issue which has become clearly much more a stand-in for our culture war, than an issue of public safety.
All drugs can be gateway drugs, it depends of genetics and values.
Quote from: Solar on December 18, 2013, 01:40:44 PM
All drugs can be gateway drugs, it depends of genetics and values.
The "gateway drug" theory states that a person who would otherwise not be inclined to become an addict can begin smoking pot and this "turns" him into a hard drug user or addict. That's where it becomes a "myth."
I agree with the spirit of your statement, however. For the person who is going to become an addict, pot (and alcohol) is probably among his first steps.
Myth or not, I don't use the term "gateway" in that context. The argument still stands that the debate simply gets kicked down to the next substance and the Republicans will be denied any political capital. The move would simply be turned sideways into a negative, or ignored all together by the Left.
Quote from: Ulsterking on December 18, 2013, 02:03:32 PM
Myth or not, I don't use the term "gateway" in that context. The argument still stands that the debate simply gets kicked down to the next substance and the Republicans will be denied any political capital. The move would simply be turned sideways into a negative, or ignored all together by the Left.
Well said.
Quote from: Ulsterking on December 18, 2013, 02:03:32 PM
Myth or not, I don't use the term "gateway" in that context. The argument still stands that the debate simply gets kicked down to the next substance and the Republicans will be denied any political capital. The move would simply be turned sideways into a negative, or ignored all together by the Left.
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.
Quote from: Egg on December 18, 2013, 11:13:18 AM
The answer is simple: fear. There are enough voters with an irrational fear of pot to make it too dangerous for politicians to take the rational position of wanting to legalize it. There is still too much risk for politicians to be pro-legalization, while there is not enough pain in being against it.
But it's amazing how rational, pro-legalization and states' rights many ex-governors, ex-chiefs of police, ex-judges and others get once they retire.
Thankfully the cracks in the dam are growing very quickly and we will see a "sudden" transfer of the issue from the feds to the states, who will be able to make up their own minds as they see fit.
YEP! Legalize it and TAX THE HELL OF IT! But be prepared for the eventuality that like ANY susbstance, some people will not deal well with using it--the range could be minimal or vast and we won't know until some history. That has to be realized and prepared for.
Quote from: AndyJackson on December 18, 2013, 12:23:56 PM
Sometimes there are such things as morals, ethics, character, and values.
Certainly. And those are all wonderful things :) But we conservatives don't believe in enforcing them by law. Moral people don't need laws to tell them how they should life. They govern themselves. That very idea is what separates the West from the Middle East.
Quote from: AndyJackson on December 18, 2013, 12:23:56 PM
And I'm all for making all of these into states' issues. Let people like you move to and wallow in the sewage of states with no religion, free abortion on demand, no drug laws.......just streets and ditches full of people screwing and relieving themselves and getting high every possible way.
And the rest of us could live in states that have their own values.
Wait, I'm confused. Where did religion come into the picture? :confused: I never mentioned banning religion, nor do I believe that such a thing should happen. I'm a firm supporter of religious freedom. Where did you get the idea that I was saying religion should be banned?
Anyway, making it a states issue was my whole point. Decriminalizing it at the federal level will leave it to the states. And likewise, leaving it to the states will bring more support for the Republican party, which they really need if they're going to lead the fight against the liberal big government agenda.
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?
William F. Buckley, the Godfather of conservatism, was for legalizing pot a half century ago. If you understand anything about the history of the drug laws; you want to have nothing to do with the big government mentality behind them. It's the same mentality that brought us the wonderful world of Prohibition. AND I am tired of drug warriors who are incapable of realizing that most of what they think of as the effects of drug use, are in reality more a product of the prohibition of drug use. Don't like murderous Mexican cartels? Stop giving them a highly lucrative substance to sell.
AS for the federal state argument, states HAVE decriminalized Marijuana, only to have the feds come in and attempt to enforce outmoded drug laws. It's said that in every dry county, the bootleggers always throw their support, and money, behind the candidate who wants to keep the county dry.
Yep.
A couple of years back, California put the full legalization of marijuana on the ballot, and some of the most ardent opponents of the bill were the illegal marijuana farmers in Humboldt County, CA. They know the moment it goes legal they are swamped with competition and the price plummets.
Yes, the Democrats aren't stupid contrary to popular belief. The Pandora's Box of sociopolitical fallout is immeasurable. Just start by factoring in the problems we already have with alchahol abuse, then double it, because you've added a population of fearless tokers bumbling about. Like I said, if there weren't apolitical repercussions, they would have lifted the ban and strong armed every state into legalization by now.
And your talking about an industry that will rival and most likely eclipse the tobacco industry, and you don't think administration, regulating, and litigating that beast won't expand government at all levels? Pfft.
Not to mention that drug enforcement costs won't drop dramatically with the loss of prosecuting pot heads. There are plenty of other substance abusers, the focus will just shift, not the funding. Not to mention that the stoners won't go to jail for smoking, but for the stupid stuff they'll do after that gets them and other people hurt. And don't tell me stoners can't be as dangerous as drunks, because I've known plenty of both. The former tend to to keep a lower profile only because of the illegality of the activity. Remove the stigma and the picture will change.
Groovy.
Quote from: grace_note on December 18, 2013, 02:13:55 PM
Certainly. And those are all wonderful things :) But we conservatives don't believe in enforcing them by law. Moral people don't need laws to tell them how they should life. They govern themselves. That very idea is what separates the West from the Middle East.
Wait, I'm confused. Where did religion come into the picture? :confused: I never mentioned banning religion, nor do I believe that such a thing should happen. I'm a firm supporter of religious freedom. Where did you get the idea that I was saying religion should be banned?
Anyway, making it a states issue was my whole point. Decriminalizing it at the federal level will leave it to the states. And likewise, leaving it to the states will bring more support for the Republican party, which they really need if they're going to lead the fight against the liberal big government agenda.
Sorry, I was responding to pornotaker's equating of pot and abortion. The former has very little in the way of moral or ethical issues..........the latter completely. I just mentioned religion because it's what the left wishes didn't even exist, in the context of morals and ethics.
Quote from: AndyJackson on December 18, 2013, 12:23:56 PM
Sometimes there are such things as morals, ethics, character, and values.
Though I know that none are required for any of your beliefs.
And I'm all for making all of these into states' issues. Let people like you move to and wallow in the sewage of states with no religion, free abortion on demand, no drug laws.......just streets and ditches full of people screwing and relieving themselves and getting high every possible way.
And the rest of us could live in states that have their own values.
Here in the state of WA they sponsor toke-in's and the Seattle City Police pass out bags of Doritos -- part of the team building initiative. Everyone should brush up on the fall of Rome... it's a race to the bottom, pure and simple. There's a perverse side of me that wishes we'd get there sooner than later... guillotine vs. death by a thousand slashes.