Weed?

Should weed be legal?


  • Total voters
    42

Narz

keeping it real
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
30,611
Location
Haverhill, UK
Should weed be legal?

What sort of social/economic/psychological effects can we expect if it is fully legalized in all/most countries?
 
I lean towards legalization, but I have suspicions about its effects and whether it would be good for society in general. So, I picked the middle-of-the-road option, and say yes there are legitimate medical uses for it.
 
Canada seems to have a good model. We classify it the same as alcohol. And we pretty much annihilated the black marked for weed in a very short time. No more weed sales for organized crime. And we get a huge amount of tax revenue from it.
Tax and Trade works far better than Prohibition.
 
I used to be pro-legalization, but lately I've drifted away from that. I don't see any particular reason it should be legalized. It is brought up how tobacco is legalized; but is that really an argument in favor of weed legalization, or is that an argument against tobacco legalization? If tobacco was brand new, would we be voting to legalize it in 2021?
 
Yes, obviously.
 
I don't see any particular reason it should be legalized
Innocent until proven guilty? Under what grounds was it made illegal?

The default for plants is that they are legal.

Re : tobacco, should be legal but you have to smoke 20 feet away from nonsmokers.

It's hard to compare the two tho as tobacco causes cancer whereas weed does not generally cause physical harm.
 
Innocent until proven guilty? Under what grounds was it made illegal?
Smoking weed is not good for your health. It may not be as bad as tobacco, but is that really a reason to legalize it?
 
I do not see a good reason to imprison people and destroy their ability to thrive because they chose to consume something, harmful or not.
That's a separate question from whether something should be legal.
 
Smoking weed is not good for your health. It may not be as bad as tobacco, but is that really a reason to legalize it?

I haven't smoked weed since like 2019. I use it daily.
 
I used to be pro-legalization, but lately I've drifted away from that. I don't see any particular reason it should be legalized. It is brought up how tobacco is legalized; but is that really an argument in favor of weed legalization, or is that an argument against tobacco legalization? If tobacco was brand new, would we be voting to legalize it in 2021?

some reasons:

1) you wont have to threaten people to pay for your law
2) or the 10s of millions of people who use weed with imprisonment
3) bystanders victimized by your mistakes deserve better, tell them why they dont
4) illegal weed funds criminal gangs, look at what illegal weed here did to Mexico
5) crime increases as everyone involved has no legal recourse over disputes
6) so more law enforcement and a BLM movement complaining about the police
7) explain why its your business without using guilt by association
8) marijuana has medicinal properties, alcohol is poison - the hypocrisy is obvious
9) the war on weed is unconstitutional, Congress cant punish you for a plant
10) racists ban weed and target people of color, where art thou BLM?

Biden voters bite their tongues

got more... what are your most compelling reasons?

Consent of the governed is a moral principle underlying a just government, but what does it mean? I think it generally means I need moral authority first before I can consent. For example, if I dont want neighbors can I tell politicians to kill them? How can I consent to actions I cant pursue myself? I dont have the moral authority to decide what you choose to ingest and I cant imagine our constitutional system of limited government gave such a dictatorial power to Congress. It didn't...

The history of how weed became illegal is a decades long song and dance routine to side step the Constitution. They couldn't just ban it because hemp grew in many states and they hadn't fully corrupted the interstate commerce clause yet, so they hit hemp production with a hefty tax. Ofc all those people farming hemp didn't know all that talk about them Mexicans and their devil weed meant a prohibitive tax on them, silly Americans.

WWII put a temporary halt to the war on weed since hemp was a vital resource to the war effort and I think 1-2 decades after the war the tax was ruled unconstitutional, not so much based on the tax but the fact the government wasn't even selling tax stamps to hemp producers wanting to pay the tax.

The courts very early on decided Congress couldn't use a legitimate power (eg taxation) to create other powers not allowed, like the power to deter hemp production with prohibitive taxes. In other words, Congress cant use taxation to ban intrastate hemp production. Taxes are for raising revenue, not micromanaging personal behavior.
 
I actually agree with most of your post @Berzerker but how was interstate commerce corrupted?

As written the constitution gives the feds a blank check.
 
I actually agree with most of your post @Berzerker but how was interstate commerce corrupted?

As written the constitution gives the feds a blank check.

One of the perceived weaknesses to the Articles of Confederation was the trade wars the states engaged in with each other, so the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The ICC was meant to create free trade within the USA and give federal courts oversight. That way people in different states could engage in trade and have a 'neutral' arbiter decide disputes rather than having to 'travel' to the state of the party being sued.

But the ICC was one of those powers Congress would latch onto when expanding their power. Regulating back then in the context of interstate commerce meant the free flow of goods where people could depend on fair treatment when disputes arose. Putting that aside, the ICC was really expanded under FDR and the court packing scheme. The SCOTUS was saved but they loosened up on allowing his agenda.

It was about that time Congress passed the tax on weed. They didn't use the ICC because weed was intrastate. And the story behind it smacks of crony fascism. The guy who gave us "Remember the Maine" didn't like competing with hemp so his newspapers (Rosebud) smeared brown people and their evil weed and the threat they posed to our fine young cannibals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.

So regulating interstate commerce had come to mean punishing you for eating the tomatoes grown in your garden. Yup. You see, if lots of people have gardens they dont need to buy as much food and that has an effect on interstate commerce. There is little under the sun Congress cant do with that interpretation. Hell, they could make you buy a car for its desired effect on interstate commerce.
 
Why does this not lead you to the conclusion that yhe constitution is an absurd, vacuous document? Why do you hero worship the men who negotiated it and wrote it?

Also do you think Marbury v Madison was correctly decided?
 
I dont think they're heroes, but it aint their fault if we ignore their pieces of paper. Lysander Spooner argued we have no duty or moral obligation to abide by deals they made, I agree. The people with badges and guns disagree.

as for that case, yes, the courts have the power and obligation to strike down unconstitutional laws.
 
Top Bottom