Recreational Marijuana

[grilled_cheese]

When will Tennessee  join the ranks of the free states?

[BnaBreaker]

When social conservatives start to actually care about personal freedom instead of just pretending to because saying as much plays well in an election cycle? 

That's (probably) all I'll say on the matter.  Yes, I'm being one of those assholes who drops a conversational grenade and leaves haha... it's just that I have very little interest in having political debates on the internet these days.  

[fieldmarshaldj]

^Yes, let's legalize dope. After all, this country needs one more thing to make it that much stupider.

[satalac]

Even if they did legalize it, I wouldn't partake because it's still a crime according to the Feds. And since the Feds say you can't use marijuana and own guns, I'm going to abstain. I'm ok with it being legal however.  How is Colorado doing since? Pros and cons there?

[UTgrad09]

3 hours ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

^Yes, let's legalize dope. After all, this country needs one more thing to make it that much stupider.

Alcohol is already legal.

[fieldmarshaldj]

3 hours ago, UTgrad09 said:

Alcohol is already legal.

And ? Are we seriously going to have another pointless drug legalization thread on the internet ?

[grilled_cheese]

Do we have a shot at being the first state in the south?  I always figured NC would but after the last year or so it might be KY.  It would really be a boost for agricultural jobs, I don't know how that isn't something that is talked about much.

 

38 minutes ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

And ? Are we seriously going to have another pointless drug legalization thread on the internet ?

Then why did you enter AND post in a thread titled "Recreational Marijuana?

 

7 hours ago, satalac said:

Even if they did legalize it, I wouldn't partake because it's still a crime according to the Feds. And since the Feds say you can't use marijuana and own guns, I'm going to abstain. I'm ok with it being legal however.  How is Colorado doing since? Pros and cons there?

Unemployment is super low, they're giving money back to the people and they're on track to collect more taxes than they projected.   I'd say they're doing pretty good!

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by grilled_cheese

[fieldmarshaldj]

10 minutes ago, grilled_cheese said:

Then why did you enter AND post in a thread titled "Recreational Marijuana?

To give this cockamamie notion a big thumbs down. We need to be discouraging stupid and destructive behavior, not encouraging and proliferating it. You'd think the last 50 years in this country is proof positive that it's time to raise our standards.

[dmillsphoto]

3 minutes ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

To give this cockamamie notion a big thumbs down. We need to be discouraging stupid and destructive behavior, not encouraging and proliferating it. You'd think the last 50 years in this country is proof positive that it's time to raise our standards.

Some of the brightest in this country use cannabis in some form or fashion.  People far smarter than you or I.

[Pdt2f]

I'm relatively indifferent to decriminalization or legalization, and I'm pretty socially conservative with almost every issue. I actually have problems with the "legalize it and tax the heck out of it" idea that a lot of people talk about, though. Weed is either socially and medically harmful, or it is not. If it's harmful, it shouldn't be legal. If it is not harmful, it shouldn't be taxed higher than other similar commodities. Otherwise legalizing it would just be a shameful government money-grab. 

55 minutes ago, dmillsphoto said:

Some of the brightest in this country use cannabis in some form or fashion.  People far smarter than you or I.

Just because smart people do it doesn't mean it's a smart action. Smart people also piss into the wind, have kids they can't afford out of wedlock, and eat way too many chicken wings, but it doesn't mean those aren't still dumb things to do. 

[UTgrad09]

5 hours ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

And ? Are we seriously going to have another pointless drug legalization thread on the internet ?

Alcohol is a drug. It can lead to destructive behavior.  Thousands of deaths can be attributed to it each year through disease or overdose. And when it was made illegal, organized crime made sure to pick up the slack and make it available, despite the risk of punishment. 

Marijuana is objectively safer than alcohol. Many drugs have benefits (including alcohol), but any drug you abuse is destructive. So my point is that if you view marijuana as "dope" and think that it will just make this country "stupider"....then do you support prohibition of alcohol as well? And if the answer is no, then what is your reasoning? And if the answer is yes, then why is the prohibition of marijuana any more successful than the prohibition of alcohol was?

And the next level we shall get to is the number of people jailed for minor drug offenses, and whether or not you could consider yourself a "small government" individual if you support a system that incarcerates a huge number of non-violent offenders.

3 hours ago, Pdt2f said:

I'm relatively indifferent to decriminalization or legalization, and I'm pretty socially conservative with almost every issue. I actually have problems with the "legalize it and tax the heck out of it" idea that a lot of people talk about, though. Weed is either socially and medically harmful, or it is not. If it's harmful, it shouldn't be legal. If it is not harmful, it shouldn't be taxed higher than other similar commodities. Otherwise legalizing it would just be a shameful government money-grab. 

Just because smart people do it doesn't mean it's a smart action. Smart people also piss into the wind, have kids they can't afford out of wedlock, and eat way too many chicken wings, but it doesn't mean those aren't still dumb things to do. 

I actually partially agree with point #1. As someone that is generally opposed to excess taxes, the "legalize and tax the $#!+ out of it" campaign rubs me the wrong way. I mean, I understand the idea that you're trying to make it politically palatable as a revenue stream by possibly giving fiscal conservatives a means to lower other standard taxes in order to raise a new "sin" tax, but the whole idea doesn't pass my smell test. A tax is a tax. What's to stop this from being expanded to other behaviors that the government does not like? We're already seeing it experimented on with sugars, in the name of public health.

View marijuana tax like legalized gambling. As long as the number of gambling sites remain small, then the tax is actually lucrative. But as soon as everywhere legalizes gambling, that awesome revenue stream comes crashing down. Likewise, if we're going to use the "Colorado model".....if every state around Colorado legalizes weed, then all of a sudden, they don't have the market covered. They lose a huge amount of tourism tax.

Also mildly agree with you that "just because smart people do it doesn't mean it's a smart action." That's not really the point, though. The point is refuting that "it will make our nation dumber" somehow.  I will make the argument that smoking marijuana will possibly open up people to new ideas or perspectives and enlighten them, rather than simply dumb them down. What will make our nation more stupid is to dig in our heels and surround ourselves in our echo chambers where we only believe things that agree with our biases, and not challenge our perspectives with differing points of view.  That bends both right and left.

[fieldmarshaldj]

14 hours ago, dmillsphoto said:

Some of the brightest in this country use cannabis in some form or fashion.  People far smarter than you or I.

Their usage of it for "recreational" reasons tends to discount any claims of higher level intelligence.

[dmillsphoto]

Does it really, though? The whole "weed makes you dumb" thing has scientifically been proven to not be the case. But, if you disagree with the science, I look forward to your peer-reviewed research that says otherwise.

[fieldmarshaldj]

9 hours ago, UTgrad09 said:

Alcohol is a drug. It can lead to destructive behavior.  Thousands of deaths can be attributed to it each year through disease or overdose. And when it was made illegal, organized crime made sure to pick up the slack and make it available, despite the risk of punishment. 

Marijuana is objectively safer than alcohol. Many drugs have benefits (including alcohol), but any drug you abuse is destructive. So my point is that if you view marijuana as "dope" and think that it will just make this country "stupider"....then do you support prohibition of alcohol as well? And if the answer is no, then what is your reasoning? And if the answer is yes, then why is the prohibition of marijuana any more successful than the prohibition of alcohol was?

And the next level we shall get to is the number of people jailed for minor drug offenses, and whether or not you could consider yourself a "small government" individual if you support a system that incarcerates a huge number of non-violent offenders.

I actually partially agree with point #1. As someone that is generally opposed to excess taxes, the "legalize and tax the $#!+ out of it" campaign rubs me the wrong way. I mean, I understand the idea that you're trying to make it politically palatable as a revenue stream by possibly giving fiscal conservatives a means to lower other standard taxes in order to raise a new "sin" tax, but the whole idea doesn't pass my smell test. A tax is a tax. What's to stop this from being expanded to other behaviors that the government does not like? We're already seeing it experimented on with sugars, in the name of public health.

View marijuana tax like legalized gambling. As long as the number of gambling sites remain small, then the tax is actually lucrative. But as soon as everywhere legalizes gambling, that awesome revenue stream comes crashing down. Likewise, if we're going to use the "Colorado model".....if every state around Colorado legalizes weed, then all of a sudden, they don't have the market covered. They lose a huge amount of tourism tax.

Also mildly agree with you that "just because smart people do it doesn't mean it's a smart action." That's not really the point, though. The point is refuting that "it will make our nation dumber" somehow.  I will make the argument that smoking marijuana will possibly open up people to new ideas or perspectives and enlighten them, rather than simply dumb them down. What will make our nation more stupid is to dig in our heels and surround ourselves in our echo chambers where we only believe things that agree with our biases, and not challenge our perspectives with differing points of view.  That bends both right and left.

I've heard every argument pro- and con- on the subject for years, but it has never changed my view. Alcohol can be used responsibly, and in some cases, can be beneficial. I do not drink, so I cannot claim personal benefits. As for legality or illegality, if people want something badly enough, they'll get it. So that argument can be made against anything. People will rob, so why have laws ? People will rape, ditto. People will kill, and again... I strongly believe in community standards. When you start to lower standards, as we've seen in this country especially over the past half century, you reap the consequences of such.

If you legalize (and hence legitimize) marijuana, where is it to stop ? It's the same argument with gay marriage. How can you forbid other types of marriage (pluralistic marriage, marriage to inanimate objects, animals, so forth). Once you've removed a barrier, you don't have much of an argument for keeping others. If you're going to snort cocaine or shoot up heroin, who are you to get in the way ? I'm sure there are plenty of "smart" people that do it. I've already personally seen the consequences of moving from one to the next with horrific and deadly consequences with a former friend and schoolmate of mine.

There's also the issue of potency, too. The dope that's around today is far stronger than the stinkweed the cool kids in the '70s used to get high on. Kids get into that crap today and it can have serious medical and psychological consequences. Dr. Phil, no right-winger he, has addressed this with greater frequency. Frankly, I don't see this as a political issue, as many on both sides oppose this. Although I'm a libertarian to a degree, this is where I part company with many of them, as they're often militant pro-dopers (with an eye towards legalizing all harder drugs once that barrier is crossed).

I think the social costs for the long term are a reason why going down this path is wrong headed. We're already seeing this happen in Colorado (in places like Durango with the potheads on the streets. I was there in the '90s, that wasn't happening then). No, just too many reasons why this is the wrong way to go.

To argue another point, do I think someone should be incarcerated for a long stint over this stuff (excluding dealing, which I support long sentences for) ? Generally, no. But it also depends if they make a chronic habit out of doing so. I'd generally prefer to treat it as a public health issue. Get the person into rehab for their addictions, be it alcohol or narcotics. Only if rehab fails for the person should jail be a viable option.

[fieldmarshaldj]

13 minutes ago, dmillsphoto said:

Does it really, though? The whole "weed makes you dumb" thing has scientifically been proven to not be the case. But, if you disagree with the science, I look forward to your peer-reviewed research that says otherwise.

We're simply not going to agree. As for "intelligence", some of the smartest people I've ever run across are some of the dumbest (lacking in common sense). As for "science", that can be molded to suit the agenda of a given subject. Take the great man-made "climate change" hoax, for instance. That's more political and pseudo-religious nonsense than real science. Curiously when anyone dares (in the science realm) to poke holes in it, they are treated with the same deranged contempt as those who (wrongly) deny the Nazi-led Holocaust. If there's one thing that is entirely true, science is NEVER settled.

[dmillsphoto]

Yeah, I'm pulling the moderator card and not responding to that one.

[UTgrad09]

10 hours ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

I've heard every argument pro- and con- on the subject for years, but it has never changed my view. Alcohol can be used responsibly, and in some cases, can be beneficial. I do not drink, so I cannot claim personal benefits. As for legality or illegality, if people want something badly enough, they'll get it. So that argument can be made against anything. People will rob, so why have laws ? People will rape, ditto. People will kill, and again... I strongly believe in community standards. When you start to lower standards, as we've seen in this country especially over the past half century, you reap the consequences of such.

1) Let me ask you, what would it take to sway your view? Arguments or data? Or are you set in your ways and closed-minded when it comes to a subject that you have already decided on?

2) Marijuana can be used responsibly, and in some cases, can be beneficial. And it's also less addictive than alcohol, and pretty much impossible to overdose on, unlike alcohol. Which is why I brought it up in the first place. Marijuana has documented medical benefits for those prone to seizures as well as those infected with HIV. For the recreational user, I challenge you to tell me why it is different than alcohol. Since you don't use either alcohol or marijuana, I imagine that would be quite the intuitive leap.

3) Why have laws? You mention people will kill, rape, and steal anyways. Are laws not part of community standards? And can community standards not evolve over time? At one time, it was a standard that blacks had to sit in the back of the bus, use separate water fountains and bathrooms, sit in different portions of theaters, etc. Community standards supported that. My view is that community standards are not always right or wrong. 

4) You view this as the lowering of standards. I view it as finally recognizing that marijuana's illegality is the result of a propaganda campaign, and that the continued resistance is strongly supported by the pharmaceutical industry, which is heavily invested in not having a natural alternative to highly addictive opioid medications.

Quote

If you legalize (and hence legitimize) marijuana, where is it to stop ? It's the same argument with gay marriage. How can you forbid other types of marriage (pluralistic marriage, marriage to inanimate objects, animals, so forth). Once you've removed a barrier, you don't have much of an argument for keeping others. If you're going to snort cocaine or shoot up heroin, who are you to get in the way ? I'm sure there are plenty of "smart" people that do it. I've already personally seen the consequences of moving from one to the next with horrific and deadly consequences with a former friend and schoolmate of mine.

Could you not argue this with any stupid law that is in place? Of course there has to be thought of where this stops. I do not support the legalization of cocaine or heroin, but at the same time, the effects of marijuana usage are not even in the same ballpark as cocaine or heroin. They are much more akin to alcohol.

I can provide anecdotes as well. My college roommate was a pothead. He drank a lot (like most college kids), and then he got into pills. Pills are what wrecked him. He's OK now. He kicked the pill habit after not graduating college, and moving out of state. But it wasn't marijuana that got to him. He had a really addictive personality.

I smoked marijuana periodically throughout college. I tried some other drugs here and there. I never got deeply addicted. (also, note, I haven't done anything other than alcohol in 9 years -- and would likely not smoke marijuana now, even if legal). I don't know if you would consider me to be a smart person. Frankly, I don't care.  But I know the effects from experience, and you do not. I'm not making my argument on the observation of others, but rather of what I know myself.

So, your personal experience be damned (sorry about your former friend, though), I know better. There are people that eat themselves to death. There are people that drink themselves to death, and there are people that drug themselves to death. Unless you are a fan of more regulation, I don't think you should be supporting the government trying to protect us from ourselves and our personal decisions. It's when those decisions affect the lives of others that the government should get involved.

Quote

There's also the issue of potency, too. The dope that's around today is far stronger than the stinkweed the cool kids in the '70s used to get high on. Kids get into that crap today and it can have serious medical and psychological consequences. Dr. Phil, no right-winger he, has addressed this with greater frequency. Frankly, I don't see this as a political issue, as many on both sides oppose this. Although I'm a libertarian to a degree, this is where I part company with many of them, as they're often militant pro-dopers (with an eye towards legalizing all harder drugs once that barrier is crossed).

You don't have any clue what you're talking about. Like, not a shred.  I smoked some of the highest quality headies in college, and the only psychological consequence was the stupid level of conversation from my friends. If you are a chronic user of any drug, you will see negative impacts. If you believe some quack like Dr. Phil, or something suggesting that potent pot will have some serious medical issue for a recreational user, then frankly, you have had more damaging psychological effects from believing bullsh*t than actually attempting critical thinking.

P.S., you reek of hardcore social conservative. It's hard to believe that "Libertarian" is anything other than an attempt to not be labeled as a Republican. I'm a moderate Libertarian. I don't see that in you at all.

Quote

I think the social costs for the long term are a reason why going down this path is wrong headed. We're already seeing this happen in Colorado (in places like Durango with the potheads on the streets. I was there in the '90s, that wasn't happening then). No, just too many reasons why this is the wrong way to go.

http://www.westword.com/news/pot-panhandling-and-fox-news-a-colorado-town-fights-back-9131318

Maybe not eat everything that Fox News feeds you?

Quote

To argue another point, do I think someone should be incarcerated for a long stint over this stuff (excluding dealing, which I support long sentences for) ? Generally, no. But it also depends if they make a chronic habit out of doing so. I'd generally prefer to treat it as a public health issue. Get the person into rehab for their addictions, be it alcohol or narcotics. Only if rehab fails for the person should jail be a viable option.

Now I do agree with this. People that are obviously out of control of their vices should be given a chance to rehabilitate. And those that demonstrate that they are unwilling or unable to? I have compassion, but not at the expense of harming others.

[Pdt2f]

Point of order to this topic that I have very little interest in: people typically aren't jailed for possession of weed unless they're on probation, have an illegal firearm on them, are driving high, or already have warrants. This idea that our jails are teeming with nonviolent possessors of pot is fake news. The vast majority of people in prison for drug offenses are there for trafficking large amounts, or were involved in gangs that trafficked large amounts (RICO). Our justice system is too overworked to spend time jailing potheads, most of them (even those with small amounts that qualify as intent to sell) end up either paying a fine, getting probation, or just have the charges dropped. 

[dmillsphoto]

12 minutes ago, Pdt2f said:

Point of order to this topic that I have very little interest in: people typically aren't jailed for possession of weed unless they're on probation, have an illegal firearm on them, are driving high, or already have warrants. This idea that our jails are teeming with nonviolent possessors of pot is fake news. The vast majority of people in prison for drug offenses are there for trafficking large amounts, or were involved in gangs that trafficked large amounts (RICO). Our justice system is too overworked to spend time jailing potheads, most of them (even those with small amounts that qualify as intent to sell) end up either paying a fine, getting probation, or just have the charges dropped. 

Out of 8.2M marijuana-related arrests between 2001 and 2010, 7.2M were simple possession arrests. You can guess what demographic was nearly 4x more likely than another to be arrested for simple possession. However, that doesn't include incarceration stats. Looking for those now.
 

EDIT 1: Interestingly, the number of African Americans arrested  for possession has gone up while the number of users has gone down. (WaPo, 2013).

EDIT 2: Approximately .7% of US prison population is resulting from simple possession (Samefacts.com, 2013 though I am checking others)

[grilled_cheese]

Would this state ever allow a referendum?  Who proposes that?  The governor?  State Senate?

 

I would say I am guilty of throwing around the "tax the hell out of it" line but I believe a regular sales tax would be plenty to fix several issues in this state.  Let alone the jobs benefit it would have.

[fieldmarshaldj]

13 hours ago, UTgrad09 said:

1) Let me ask you, what would it take to sway your view? Arguments or data? Or are you set in your ways and closed-minded when it comes to a subject that you have already decided on?

2) Marijuana can be used responsibly, and in some cases, can be beneficial. And it's also less addictive than alcohol, and pretty much impossible to overdose on, unlike alcohol. Which is why I brought it up in the first place. Marijuana has documented medical benefits for those prone to seizures as well as those infected with HIV. For the recreational user, I challenge you to tell me why it is different than alcohol. Since you don't use either alcohol or marijuana, I imagine that would be quite the intuitive leap.

3) Why have laws? You mention people will kill, rape, and steal anyways. Are laws not part of community standards? And can community standards not evolve over time? At one time, it was a standard that blacks had to sit in the back of the bus, use separate water fountains and bathrooms, sit in different portions of theaters, etc. Community standards supported that. My view is that community standards are not always right or wrong. 

4) You view this as the lowering of standards. I view it as finally recognizing that marijuana's illegality is the result of a propaganda campaign, and that the continued resistance is strongly supported by the pharmaceutical industry, which is heavily invested in not having a natural alternative to highly addictive opioid medications.

Could you not argue this with any stupid law that is in place? Of course there has to be thought of where this stops. I do not support the legalization of cocaine or heroin, but at the same time, the effects of marijuana usage are not even in the same ballpark as cocaine or heroin. They are much more akin to alcohol.

I can provide anecdotes as well. My college roommate was a pothead. He drank a lot (like most college kids), and then he got into pills. Pills are what wrecked him. He's OK now. He kicked the pill habit after not graduating college, and moving out of state. But it wasn't marijuana that got to him. He had a really addictive personality.

I smoked marijuana periodically throughout college. I tried some other drugs here and there. I never got deeply addicted. (also, note, I haven't done anything other than alcohol in 9 years -- and would likely not smoke marijuana now, even if legal). I don't know if you would consider me to be a smart person. Frankly, I don't care.  But I know the effects from experience, and you do not. I'm not making my argument on the observation of others, but rather of what I know myself.

So, your personal experience be damned (sorry about your former friend, though), I know better. There are people that eat themselves to death. There are people that drink themselves to death, and there are people that drug themselves to death. Unless you are a fan of more regulation, I don't think you should be supporting the government trying to protect us from ourselves and our personal decisions. It's when those decisions affect the lives of others that the government should get involved.

You don't have any clue what you're talking about. Like, not a shred.  I smoked some of the highest quality headies in college, and the only psychological consequence was the stupid level of conversation from my friends. If you are a chronic user of any drug, you will see negative impacts. If you believe some quack like Dr. Phil, or something suggesting that potent pot will have some serious medical issue for a recreational user, then frankly, you have had more damaging psychological effects from believing bullsh*t than actually attempting critical thinking.

P.S., you reek of hardcore social conservative. It's hard to believe that "Libertarian" is anything other than an attempt to not be labeled as a Republican. I'm a moderate Libertarian. I don't see that in you at all.

http://www.westword.com/news/pot-panhandling-and-fox-news-a-colorado-town-fights-back-9131318

Maybe not eat everything that Fox News feeds you?

Now I do agree with this. People that are obviously out of control of their vices should be given a chance to rehabilitate. And those that demonstrate that they are unwilling or unable to? I have compassion, but not at the expense of harming others.

I don't believe we can have a productive conversation on this subject.

[UTgrad09]

2 hours ago, fieldmarshaldj said:

I don't believe we can have a productive conversation on this subject.

*looks at previous posts in this thread*

Was that ever your aim?

[fieldmarshaldj]

8 minutes ago, UTgrad09 said:

*looks at previous posts in this thread*

Was that ever your aim?

I stated my position on the subject, which I've held, btw, since before you were born. A little less anger, snark, smug superiority and snot might've yielded some augmented insight on this between us, but since you rolled out the old hackneyed talking points and shots (brainwashed by Fox News ? I don't watch Fox News, and again, I've held my same beliefs since before it was in existence), it's apparent that you're the one that doesn't want a productive conversation here.

[dmillsphoto]

Seems appropriate, at least from the medical side.

 

[grilled_cheese]

I think we can all agree that marijuana should NOT be Schedule 1.  This makes it (basically) impossible for anyone to research it, legally.

Someone mentioned tourism earlier, how great would it be if TN swooped in and was the first of the Southern states to legalize rec, and we become one of the mecca's for MJ?  Outside of the PNW, we would be one of the best places to grow the plant.  Think of all the cool strain names we could come up with.  Nashville could become and even greater tourist destination.