Pot Wars!

[CaptainF]

Prohibiting the consumption of MJ across the whole country is a highly immoral prohibition.
Not as immoral as slavery, true. But much more immoral than prohibiting a dangerous synthetic compound.

Indeed. That's pretty much why legalization has really started to become a serious political force in this country: the majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, now realize that cannabis prohibition is profoundly immoral.

 

[bhsup]

Let's try this again without the cries from the hippie gallery.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=540833

Mods, please close this worthless thread.

 

[CaptainF]

@Dawgphood001: I take it your quotations of a Confederate officer mean along with your attempt to tie pot to slavery mean you acknowledge that the civil war was not about slavery?

Protip: That was a rhetorical question. It just amused me, who you chose to quote, that's all, given your comment after the quote.

Well, I think the Civil war both was and was not about slavery...hmm...I could write a lot about this and derail the thread, but to keep it short I would say it was ~60% about slavery. I could PM you a longer reply if ya wanna.

And though I don't think prohibition of pot is as immoral as slavery, it should be noted that many people who are jailed for pot end up doing menial prison labor for very little or no money at all...kinda like slaves.

 

[onejayhawk]

But, trying to get her right to the edge of inappropriately drunk? Kinda encouraged.

Kate Hepburn--Why? was I so unattractive? So distant? so forbidding or something?
James Stewart--You were extremely attractive, as as for distant and forbidding, on the contrary, but you were a little the worse, or better, for wine, and there are rules about that.

The Philadelphia Story

Prohibiting the consumption of MJ across the whole country is a highly immoral prohibition.
Not as immoral as slavery, true. But much more immoral than prohibiting a dangerous synthetic compound.

As President Obama says, pass a law.

J

 

[Berzerker]

Let's try this again without the cries from the hippie gallery.

Mods, please close this worthless thread.

You call people names and runaway?

Don't smoke pot if you don't want to be shoved into that little cage. It's really that simple.

Bow to our gods if you dont wanna be fed to circus lions

There is nothing at all unethical about the government mandating that pot smoking is illegal (let's limit this to recreational and not delve into the so-called medical side of it) in any way. You want to disagree? Fine. You're wrong, but fine.

How are you gonna pay for all those people sitting in cages? By ethically threatening more people to hand over the fruits of their labor. Lessons in ethics from the tax man...

The so-called medical side? Pot helps with all sorts of conditions, ranging from glaucoma to diabetes (the latter worsens the former). And this will impact states that allow medical pot, so lets delve into it.

So you see, I am not ignoring morality. You are trying to pretend there is some great moral high ground in toking on a doobie. Spare me.

I didn't say smoking pot comes with the moral high ground, I said jailing millions of people for their personal behavior is immoral.

I really should have made this [RD] with the express intent of discussing the state vs state / federalism angle of all of this so as not to have to deal with reefer addicts pretending they are on a moral crusade.

I discussed the federalism angle, the prohibitionists will win. The same court that says its reasonable to blow up our homes in search of pot because Congress has the authority to decide what we all ingest will protect that power.

P.S.

I saw that, you care more about states' rights than your own freedom... Course if its a freedom you dont like, no loss. And when everyone has their say as to which freedoms we dont need, we'll be about as free as any other dictatorship.

Why should I trade a tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants a mile away?

 

[Hygro]

Neither is sexual slavery. Hard drugs are often used to enforce control over prostitutes.

Citation please.

 

[Colonel]

Citation please.

That bit is actually true, according to the US CDC, State Dept, DoJ, DoD as well as Interpol.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/113612.pdf

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prostitution_and_exploitation_of_prostitution/#a04


I assume you can continue looking from there.

 

[Hygro]

Neither of your links makes any such claim. The first says that the same girls who use drugs are more likely to be vulnerable to being prostituted. The second link says prostitutes are more likely to be use drugs and be involved in the drug trade.

Neither said anything about hard drugs being used to enforce control over prostitutes.

 

[Kozmos]

I think that's rather commonly known, at least in human trafficking, makes them more pliable.

 

[Tahuti]

I'm not sure if it has mentioned before, though I am rather concerned that the legalisation of pot in some states would be federally struck down. International treaties take precedence over the constitution and the US is a party to the controlled substance treaty.

 

[bhsup]

...International treaties take precedence over the constitution...

Ahahahahahaha!! *wipes tear from eye* Thanks man, I love starting my day with a good belly laugh

Let me just ask you something, as a sort of "worst case to prove this wrong" scenario. Suppose we signed a treaty with Mexico, and said treaty was actually ratified by the Senate, that stipulated the Mexican govt had the authority to enter our territory and arrest people without cause and take them to Mexico without any due process? Do you -really- think that would fly Constitutionally? That's actually not anywhere close to a worst case scenario.

 

[Borachio]

How "effective" do you want to be? How far are you willing to go to ensure no one does any drugs, ever? Ho much of a totalitarian society are you willing to impose on everyone to prevent drug use and abuse by a comparatively small minority?

It should be noted that even in countries where people are executed for drug sale and possession, like Afghanistan and China amongst others, there are still very high rates of drug use and abuse.

There's a number of different things to consider.

1. A consensus that drug use is in fact undesirable;
2. An effective border control on its importation;
3. Incorruptible law enforcement.
4. Availability of alternative ways of enjoying oneself.

etc

Now, these may well be insurmountable problems in practice.

But Absinthe was successfully curtailed by prohibition in France. And Mao dealt with the opium problem by making it a capital offence.

It's just not true that prohibition is a categorical failure in all cases. That's all I'm saying. I'm not recommending it as a policy.

What I'm overwhelmingly against, I think, is the current situation of a half-way house of neither effective prohibition nor outright tolerance. Make up your mind, say I. Do one or the other.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not so much that treaties overrule the Constitution, it's that they give the Fed powers that hadn't been explicitly given in the Constitution.

So, they cannot, via treaty, started infringing upon the right to bear arms. But they could, for example, raise a tax in order to fund space exploration.

 

[onejayhawk]

Abuse of drugs is a public health issue. It's a fairly serious one, but that does not raise it to the level of prohibition. We should reserve that for more serious things.

It is much commented that the US has more criminals incarcerated than any other country. An appalling proportion of these are directly--use and distribution--or indirectly drug related--gang violence, theft to support habit. Suck the money out of trafficking and those issues become more manageable.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, a lot of the problem is due to the market incentives due to the demand being obvious and predictable. The current system, of squeezing the demand incentive through force, can obviously restrict use, but can also have a ceiling effect and be very costly.

The trick is to know the demand is there, has predictable inputs, and that the supply is driven by market forces. The criminal is motivated by profit, and only slightly disincentivised by the punishment.

 

[JollyRoger]

Ahahahahahaha!! *wipes tear from eye* Thanks man, I love starting my day with a good belly laugh

Let me just ask you something, as a sort of "worst case to prove this wrong" scenario. Suppose we signed a treaty with Mexico, and said treaty was actually ratified by the Senate, that stipulated the Mexican govt had the authority to enter our territory and arrest people without cause and take them to Mexico without any due process? Do you -really- think that would fly Constitutionally? That's actually not anywhere close to a worst case scenario.

Texas violated a United States treaty with Mexico by not following the treaty's due process standards in regards to a Mexican citizen they arrested. The Supremes upheld the right of Texas to execute him without following the treaty.

 

[onejayhawk]

Yeah, a lot of the problem is due to the market incentives due to the demand being obvious and predictable. The current system, of squeezing the demand incentive through force, can obviously restrict use, but can also have a ceiling effect and be very costly.

The trick is to know the demand is there, has predictable inputs, and that the supply is driven by market forces. The criminal is motivated by profit, and only slightly disincentivised by the punishment.

It has been said that every law creates a criminal enterprise.

J

 

[Arwon]

Nebraska and Oklahoma sue Colorado over legal marijuana



The war on drugs just got interesting. Because it is state vs state, it goes straight to the Supreme Court. No working its way up the food chain with this one. Personally, I hope Colorado wins.

"But B, I thought you were a law and order guy!"

Well I am, and pot is against federal law, but I don't see anything in the Consititution that gives the federalies the right to legislate mary jane.

"So then you agree with people that smoke pot now? They should be able to do it and frak the federalies?"

No, they're criminals. You will not find one instance of me advocating breaking the law because I happen to disagree with Supreme Court rulings that allow the feds oversight in areas where they don't belong. The S.C. is frequently wrong, but the way our system has evolved, they gave themselves the power to do this, so it sucks but there you go.

"That makes no sense, man! You're contradicting yourself."

Your mama's a contradiction. ( Worst your mama joke ever, amirite??)

Every time I read you write "federalies" I read it as "feder-allies" as in the word "ally".

I eventually realise you mean federales because you're using the Spanish word for some reason but jeez can you stop breaking my brain?

 

[Arwon]

I think that's rather commonly known, at least in human trafficking, makes them more pliable.

Not quite the topic of the thread except in a general prohibition sense, but this is largely a product of criminalisation of the sex industry making sex workers very vulnerable and powerless.

 

[bhsup]

Every time I read you write "federalies" I read it as "feder-allies" as in the word "ally".

I eventually realise you mean federales because you're using the Spanish word for some reason but jeez can you stop breaking my brain?

I cannot believe I am using this site for reference, but...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=federalies