Colorado is doing it oh so right. It's gonna be a perfect model to improve upon for federal legalization in 5-7 years, hopefully sooner.
I dont have an opinion on it yet, but when I saw it has led to an increase in youths and has led to more accidents than previous years.
Plus, Id like to see where the $$$$ goes too. Just because the govt is getting more money, doesnt mean they will put it towards good use.
I forget all the specifics but a great deal of the tax dollars are allocated for education purposes and police training purposes IIRC. Basically, there was a lot of thought put into exactly where the extra revenue should go and for good reason.
I'd be hesitant to take your students facts as gospel though, it's very early in the game still and any studies and statistics being used are extremely limited samples
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
No, it's not. Not at all. The Constitution via certain amendments states that there are certain fundamental rights that are so important they are not subject to democracy. It is precisely the role of the Court determine which rights fall on either side of that divide.
If you truly believe your argument you must also think it's ok to ban marriage between different races. Or to say it's ok to put people in jail for homosexual acts. Or to say only people who own property should be allowed to vote. Those were all historically accepted positions in this country at one time, so I assume you think none of those laws would violate the Constitution either?
Please explain what is so different about saying the Constitution does not allow states to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry?
The biggest increase occurred in 2009, when Colorado commercialized medical marijuana. Drug-related school expulsions jumped from 25 percent to 34 percent. By 2014, that number rose to almost 42 percent.
stats can be skewed to force a point. So everything is always taken with a grain of salt, but the report was done months ago, so I cant remember the validity of it.
Like any issues, there's pros and cons to everything. But I think we need to see it done over a 5-10 year time period before comign to any rationalizations. Thats why I am open to either side. Need to learn more.
here is one site that reports it. Not the site that was used, but it gives some information. Marijuana use - ( New Window )
Interesting because the majority of studies I've glanced at report the opposite. Probably too soon to tell. There is likely a novelty effect in operation that could change over time.
It is the refusal of a state government to recognize same sex marriage that called into question. This decisions deems that unconstitutional. How is this different than previous decisions that deemed other state laws unconstitutional based on one's civil rights being denied?
stats can be skewed to force a point. So everything is always taken with a grain of salt, but the report was done months ago, so I cant remember the validity of it.
Like any issues, there's pros and cons to everything. But I think we need to see it done over a 5-10 year time period before comign to any rationalizations. Thats why I am open to either side. Need to learn more.
I'm not willing to wait much longer on this one, not when the amount of young black men in prison keep growing as a result of non-violent, marijuana related 'crimes'. And anything to loosen the cartels' grip on the marijuana black market is a good thing.
This one is pretty cut and dry for me. Treat it like alcohol and cigarettes, both are just as dangerous if not more and I see no valid arguments to dissuade me otherwise on that.
it will change religious institutions here in America....probably ending the religious exemption and all that comes with that. It does appear The Court has decided that consenting adults who love each other should have access to marriage.
stats can be skewed to force a point. So everything is always taken with a grain of salt, but the report was done months ago, so I cant remember the validity of it.
Like any issues, there's pros and cons to everything. But I think we need to see it done over a 5-10 year time period before comign to any rationalizations. Thats why I am open to either side. Need to learn more.
I'm not willing to wait much longer on this one, not when the amount of young black men in prison keep growing as a result of non-violent, marijuana related 'crimes'. And anything to loosen the cartels' grip on the marijuana black market is a good thing.
This one is pretty cut and dry for me. Treat it like alcohol and cigarettes, both are just as dangerous if not more and I see no valid arguments to dissuade me otherwise on that.
Are you more for decriminalizing laws or for full access to marijuana? I fear the more drugs you legalized that over time it will tend to lead more to a lenience of harder drugs.
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
It is the refusal of a state government to recognize same sex marriage that called into question. This decisions deems that unconstitutional. How is this different than previous decisions that deemed other state laws unconstitutional based on one's civil rights being denied?
Not really - the question of full faith and credit regarding existing same sex marriages was one issue that may have been properly decided in this case, but not creating a new fundamental right that should be done by the Congress or State legislature. Granted the issues in this case are characteristically intertwined.
This is a right being conferred, not being protected, and there isn't a source of power conferred upon the judiciary to create law - only to judge it. I have the same objections to several in a line of cases that expands the power of the judiciary and takes away power of the states. The legislature is the proper venue for this issue. I think Kennedy's opinion is far too sweeping in scope.
Good outcome, continued bad precedent. Just my takeaway.
RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
After they legalize that, lets worry about gambling and prostitution. Two other things that should be legalized at this point. The amount of $$$$ that can be made in those 2 areas, IMO, would be staggering.
RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
After they legalize that, lets worry about gambling and prostitution. Two other things that should be legalized at this point. The amount of $$$$ that can be made in those 2 areas, IMO, would be staggering.
it will change religious institutions here in America....probably ending the religious exemption and all that comes with that. It does appear The Court has decided that consenting adults who love each other should have access to marriage.
The opinion was very limiting on its force over religious institutions. The only changes you'll see is if the members force the change which would be totally appropriate.
Even including the war on drugs, it's not putting a dent in the national debt. You want to do that, you need to talk about the big 3 (+1): social security, medicare, defense, (+interest on the debt) Alcohol Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Even including the war on drugs, it's not putting a dent in the national debt. You want to do that, you need to talk about the big 3 (+1): social security, medicare, defense, (+interest on the debt) Alcohol Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
If drugs were decriminalized and even a portion of the dollars spent on the war on drugs and prisons were to be allocated to education and treatment, the net gains would likely be quite significant.
I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
Especially those countries that haven't seen great domestic success. What was Portugal's unemployment rate again?
Like the below statement, what does unemployment have to do with this issue and it's demonstrated success? Would keeping all drugs illegal affect the employment rate positively?
RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Again, see Portugal.
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
RE: RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations
Like the below statement, what does unemployment have to do with this issue and it's demonstrated success? Would keeping all drugs illegal affect the employment rate positively?
I don't know, would it impact it positively?
But when someone uses a less than successful nation (when it comes to domestic policy) as some barometer of a singular policy success as being good for that nation, it begs to be countered with a broader question of that policy's impact (or lack of it) on that nation's success. No policy is successful in a vacuum. I mean, I can always say how North Korea is a model for literacy rate, but overall, that doesn't amount for shit when we talk about its impact on what North Korea's success as a nation is.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
I am extremely happy with the outcome of this, it is a day for several of my close friends to celebrate personally and I celebrate with them. But how we got there is deeply troubling.
agreed
RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I'm all for legalizing weed. But I'm also looking at its impact on this nation as a whole. How will it impact our other national policies? Cherry picking the success that Portugal may have had on this narrow area with regards to weeds while ignoring that Portugal is a mess of a nation doesn't really bolster any confidence of legalizing weed being good for a nation.
RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Again, see Portugal.
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I agree in part, but accepting pot is a lot easier than accepting harder drugs. There will always be the mindset that they are just too alluring. This in the face of evidence to the contrary. Pot's definitely the first to take down, especially as a Schedule 1 substance.
It is the refusal of a state government to recognize same sex marriage that called into question. This decisions deems that unconstitutional. How is this different than previous decisions that deemed other state laws unconstitutional based on one's civil rights being denied?
Not really - the question of full faith and credit regarding existing same sex marriages was one issue that may have been properly decided in this case, but not creating a new fundamental right that should be done by the Congress or State legislature. Granted the issues in this case are characteristically intertwined.
This is a right being conferred, not being protected, and there isn't a source of power conferred upon the judiciary to create law - only to judge it. I have the same objections to several in a line of cases that expands the power of the judiciary and takes away power of the states. The legislature is the proper venue for this issue. I think Kennedy's opinion is far too sweeping in scope.
Good outcome, continued bad precedent. Just my takeaway.
Your argument that this is naked judicial legislation is definitely defensible. But the dissenters in this case making that argument have done exactly the same thing in other cases, including the creation of a second amendment right to own a gun outside of a state militia, insisting that the takings and due process clauses limit punitive damages, and interpreting the eleventh amendment to bar suits by citizens against their own states.
Judges always claim to be "umpires" who "neutrally" interpret the law. But few do, regardless of their ideology or politics. It's one reason, along with the fact that the document is just ridiculously outdated, that I think we need at least another ten, maybe fifteen, new amendments.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I'm all for legalizing weed. But I'm also looking at its impact on this nation as a whole. How will it impact our other national policies? Cherry picking the success that Portugal may have had on this narrow area with regards to weeds while ignoring that Portugal is a mess of a nation doesn't really bolster any confidence of legalizing weed being good for a nation.
Which is basically my point in not bringing up portugal. I've watched their situation closely since I learned of their decriminalization years ago but never saw the need to include it in any legalization argument I've ever had for those exact reasons.
Any negative impact of marijuana legalization on this country as a whole will be proven out to be minimal and the benefits will far outweigh the cost of the few negatives. imho of course
RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I'm all for legalizing weed. But I'm also looking at its impact on this nation as a whole. How will it impact our other national policies? Cherry picking the success that Portugal may have had on this narrow area with regards to weeds while ignoring that Portugal is a mess of a nation doesn't really bolster any confidence of legalizing weed being good for a nation.
Maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see how one thing has anything to do with the other. It's hardly cherry-picking, I think, to cite a so-far successful program that has had an enormous positive effect on (I believe) the European country with the highest addiction rates, among other negatives such as HIV infections and crime.
It's a pretty good lesson that changing the viewpoint on how a society perceives drug use (a moral or a health issue) can create positive change.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now
Maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see how one thing has anything to do with the other. It's hardly cherry-picking, I think, to cite a so-far successful program that has had an enormous positive effect on (I believe) the European country with the highest addiction rates, among other negatives such as HIV infections and crime.
It's a pretty good lesson that changing the viewpoint on how a society perceives drug use (a moral or a health issue) can create positive change.
I see your point regarding addiction, etc. However, my point is a bit more broad and also address what was stated earlier on this thread about the positive effects of legalizing weed on our economy, criminal justice system, etc. When you look at the narrow effects on addiction rate as result of legalizing weed, Portugal does look like a good example. However, when you look at a broader impact of legalizing weed on Portugal's domestic success, it's not all that great or negligible at best, imo.
RE: RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
No, it's not. Not at all. The Constitution via certain amendments states that there are certain fundamental rights that are so important they are not subject to democracy. It is precisely the role of the Court determine which rights fall on either side of that divide.
If you truly believe your argument you must also think it's ok to ban marriage between different races. Or to say it's ok to put people in jail for homosexual acts. Or to say only people who own property should be allowed to vote. Those were all historically accepted positions in this country at one time, so I assume you think none of those laws would violate the Constitution either?
Please explain what is so different about saying the Constitution does not allow states to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry?
You either believe in the Constituton as written or not. I guess u missed the 10th Ammendment. I personally don't give a rats ass about this and have no issue with the ruling morally but that damn 10th is pretty fucking clear. It's just easier to ignore it for those who enjoy the judiciary enacting law.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
No, it's not. Not at all. The Constitution via certain amendments states that there are certain fundamental rights that are so important they are not subject to democracy. It is precisely the role of the Court determine which rights fall on either side of that divide.
If you truly believe your argument you must also think it's ok to ban marriage between different races. Or to say it's ok to put people in jail for homosexual acts. Or to say only people who own property should be allowed to vote. Those were all historically accepted positions in this country at one time, so I assume you think none of those laws would violate the Constitution either?
Please explain what is so different about saying the Constitution does not allow states to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry?
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now
Maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see how one thing has anything to do with the other. It's hardly cherry-picking, I think, to cite a so-far successful program that has had an enormous positive effect on (I believe) the European country with the highest addiction rates, among other negatives such as HIV infections and crime.
It's a pretty good lesson that changing the viewpoint on how a society perceives drug use (a moral or a health issue) can create positive change.
I see your point regarding addiction, etc. However, my point is a bit more broad and also address what was stated earlier on this thread about the positive effects of legalizing weed on our economy, criminal justice system, etc. When you look at the narrow effects on addiction rate as result of legalizing weed, Portugal does look like a good example. However, when you look at a broader impact of legalizing weed on Portugal's domestic success, it's not all that great or negligible at best, imo.
Ah, OK. I haven't advocated decriminalization/legalization as a path to economic gains. I do think gains can be achieved, but the bigger positives are the reduction in the obscene amounts of resources that are piled into the WoD (War on Drugs), reduction in the overall crime rate (up to 70% of crime here is directly or tangentially associated with drugs), and the positive affect on people's lives by not having to serve ridiculous sentences and then having the felony millstone hung around their necks.
Gay people now have the right to marry anywhere in America...
and somehow this thread has become about pot? This is why we aren't all rushing to legalize marijuana. Because secretly America enjoys sending stoners to jail, or at least fining them here and there.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now
Ah, OK. I haven't advocated decriminalization/legalization as a path to economic gains. I do think gains can be achieved, but the bigger positives are the reduction in the obscene amounts of resources that are piled into the WoD (War on Drugs), reduction in the overall crime rate (up to 70% of crime here is directly or tangentially associated with drugs), and the positive affect on people's lives by not having to serve ridiculous sentences and then having the felony millstone hung around their necks.
I hear you. And I'm all about legalizing weed (that's strange coming from someone in my position, huh?) and see the benefits of it in the area you are speaking of.
By the way, how will legalizing weed impact our national obesity rate?...;) I heard that you do get some major munchies as well as being too high to work out.
Quote:
In comment 12344314 dep026 said:
Quote:
In comment 12344275 andrew_nyg said:
[quote] but I'd rather they legalize weed nationwide.
Same sex marriage does nothing to help boost this economy.
Legalizing weed could help eradicate the national debt. [/quote
Despite the fact 13-16 year olds show increase of pot in Colorado and there have been more ER visits since its been legalized?
Doesnt seem like a good thing to me.
What's the source for the stats?
Ive been looking for it. A student of mine did a project on it last year and printed out the website. I dont have it on me right now. Still checking.
OK. Thanks.
I dont have an opinion on it yet, but when I saw it has led to an increase in youths and has led to more accidents than previous years.
Plus, Id like to see where the $$$$ goes too. Just because the govt is getting more money, doesnt mean they will put it towards good use.
Marijuana use - ( New Window )
Quote:
Colorado is doing it oh so right. It's gonna be a perfect model to improve upon for federal legalization in 5-7 years, hopefully sooner.
I dont have an opinion on it yet, but when I saw it has led to an increase in youths and has led to more accidents than previous years.
Plus, Id like to see where the $$$$ goes too. Just because the govt is getting more money, doesnt mean they will put it towards good use.
I forget all the specifics but a great deal of the tax dollars are allocated for education purposes and police training purposes IIRC. Basically, there was a lot of thought put into exactly where the extra revenue should go and for good reason.
I'd be hesitant to take your students facts as gospel though, it's very early in the game still and any studies and statistics being used are extremely limited samples
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
No, it's not. Not at all. The Constitution via certain amendments states that there are certain fundamental rights that are so important they are not subject to democracy. It is precisely the role of the Court determine which rights fall on either side of that divide.
If you truly believe your argument you must also think it's ok to ban marriage between different races. Or to say it's ok to put people in jail for homosexual acts. Or to say only people who own property should be allowed to vote. Those were all historically accepted positions in this country at one time, so I assume you think none of those laws would violate the Constitution either?
Please explain what is so different about saying the Constitution does not allow states to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry?
Correlation =/= causation?
Like any issues, there's pros and cons to everything. But I think we need to see it done over a 5-10 year time period before comign to any rationalizations. Thats why I am open to either side. Need to learn more.
Interesting because the majority of studies I've glanced at report the opposite. Probably too soon to tell. There is likely a novelty effect in operation that could change over time.
Like any issues, there's pros and cons to everything. But I think we need to see it done over a 5-10 year time period before comign to any rationalizations. Thats why I am open to either side. Need to learn more.
I'm not willing to wait much longer on this one, not when the amount of young black men in prison keep growing as a result of non-violent, marijuana related 'crimes'. And anything to loosen the cartels' grip on the marijuana black market is a good thing.
This one is pretty cut and dry for me. Treat it like alcohol and cigarettes, both are just as dangerous if not more and I see no valid arguments to dissuade me otherwise on that.
Quote:
stats can be skewed to force a point. So everything is always taken with a grain of salt, but the report was done months ago, so I cant remember the validity of it.
Like any issues, there's pros and cons to everything. But I think we need to see it done over a 5-10 year time period before comign to any rationalizations. Thats why I am open to either side. Need to learn more.
I'm not willing to wait much longer on this one, not when the amount of young black men in prison keep growing as a result of non-violent, marijuana related 'crimes'. And anything to loosen the cartels' grip on the marijuana black market is a good thing.
This one is pretty cut and dry for me. Treat it like alcohol and cigarettes, both are just as dangerous if not more and I see no valid arguments to dissuade me otherwise on that.
Are you more for decriminalizing laws or for full access to marijuana? I fear the more drugs you legalized that over time it will tend to lead more to a lenience of harder drugs.
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Good.
Not really - the question of full faith and credit regarding existing same sex marriages was one issue that may have been properly decided in this case, but not creating a new fundamental right that should be done by the Congress or State legislature. Granted the issues in this case are characteristically intertwined.
This is a right being conferred, not being protected, and there isn't a source of power conferred upon the judiciary to create law - only to judge it. I have the same objections to several in a line of cases that expands the power of the judiciary and takes away power of the states. The legislature is the proper venue for this issue. I think Kennedy's opinion is far too sweeping in scope.
Good outcome, continued bad precedent. Just my takeaway.
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
After they legalize that, lets worry about gambling and prostitution. Two other things that should be legalized at this point. The amount of $$$$ that can be made in those 2 areas, IMO, would be staggering.
Quote:
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
After they legalize that, lets worry about gambling and prostitution. Two other things that should be legalized at this point. The amount of $$$$ that can be made in those 2 areas, IMO, would be staggering.
Sold!
The opinion was very limiting on its force over religious institutions. The only changes you'll see is if the members force the change which would be totally appropriate.
Alcohol tax revenue is even less. $6.5B in 2012.
Even including the war on drugs, it's not putting a dent in the national debt. You want to do that, you need to talk about the big 3 (+1): social security, medicare, defense, (+interest on the debt)
Alcohol Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Again, see Portugal.
Quote:
try an alcohol comparison.
Alcohol tax revenue is even less. $6.5B in 2012.
Even including the war on drugs, it's not putting a dent in the national debt. You want to do that, you need to talk about the big 3 (+1): social security, medicare, defense, (+interest on the debt) Alcohol Tax Revenue - ( New Window )
If drugs were decriminalized and even a portion of the dollars spent on the war on drugs and prisons were to be allocated to education and treatment, the net gains would likely be quite significant.
Especially those countries that haven't seen great domestic success. What was Portugal's unemployment rate again?
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
Not sure if tongue in cheek or serious.
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
Especially those countries that haven't seen great domestic success. What was Portugal's unemployment rate again?
Like the below statement, what does unemployment have to do with this issue and it's demonstrated success? Would keeping all drugs illegal affect the employment rate positively?
Quote:
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Again, see Portugal.
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I don't know, would it impact it positively?
But when someone uses a less than successful nation (when it comes to domestic policy) as some barometer of a singular policy success as being good for that nation, it begs to be countered with a broader question of that policy's impact (or lack of it) on that nation's success. No policy is successful in a vacuum. I mean, I can always say how North Korea is a model for literacy rate, but overall, that doesn't amount for shit when we talk about its impact on what North Korea's success as a nation is.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
I am extremely happy with the outcome of this, it is a day for several of my close friends to celebrate personally and I celebrate with them. But how we got there is deeply troubling.
agreed
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I'm all for legalizing weed. But I'm also looking at its impact on this nation as a whole. How will it impact our other national policies? Cherry picking the success that Portugal may have had on this narrow area with regards to weeds while ignoring that Portugal is a mess of a nation doesn't really bolster any confidence of legalizing weed being good for a nation.
Quote:
In comment 12344449 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
don't really know what to do about those but the drug war doesn't work for them either, there's gonna need to be a better way to handle those at some point
But for now, yea, just weed. It's the epitome of stupid to continue with the status quo now that we've seen the streets aren't burning (no pun intended) down as a result of the recreational legalization.
Again, see Portugal.
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I agree in part, but accepting pot is a lot easier than accepting harder drugs. There will always be the mindset that they are just too alluring. This in the face of evidence to the contrary. Pot's definitely the first to take down, especially as a Schedule 1 substance.
Quote:
It is the refusal of a state government to recognize same sex marriage that called into question. This decisions deems that unconstitutional. How is this different than previous decisions that deemed other state laws unconstitutional based on one's civil rights being denied?
Not really - the question of full faith and credit regarding existing same sex marriages was one issue that may have been properly decided in this case, but not creating a new fundamental right that should be done by the Congress or State legislature. Granted the issues in this case are characteristically intertwined.
This is a right being conferred, not being protected, and there isn't a source of power conferred upon the judiciary to create law - only to judge it. I have the same objections to several in a line of cases that expands the power of the judiciary and takes away power of the states. The legislature is the proper venue for this issue. I think Kennedy's opinion is far too sweeping in scope.
Good outcome, continued bad precedent. Just my takeaway.
Your argument that this is naked judicial legislation is definitely defensible. But the dissenters in this case making that argument have done exactly the same thing in other cases, including the creation of a second amendment right to own a gun outside of a state militia, insisting that the takings and due process clauses limit punitive damages, and interpreting the eleventh amendment to bar suits by citizens against their own states.
Judges always claim to be "umpires" who "neutrally" interpret the law. But few do, regardless of their ideology or politics. It's one reason, along with the fact that the document is just ridiculously outdated, that I think we need at least another ten, maybe fifteen, new amendments.
Quote:
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I'm all for legalizing weed. But I'm also looking at its impact on this nation as a whole. How will it impact our other national policies? Cherry picking the success that Portugal may have had on this narrow area with regards to weeds while ignoring that Portugal is a mess of a nation doesn't really bolster any confidence of legalizing weed being good for a nation.
Which is basically my point in not bringing up portugal. I've watched their situation closely since I learned of their decriminalization years ago but never saw the need to include it in any legalization argument I've ever had for those exact reasons.
Any negative impact of marijuana legalization on this country as a whole will be proven out to be minimal and the benefits will far outweigh the cost of the few negatives. imho of course
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
Quote:
I've seen it and have cited it before but let's be real, lots of Americans (at least those still in the anti-legalization camp) wouldn't be very convinced by Portugal's results, for whatever dumb reasons they'd wanna come up with.
Let's convince people on the weed for now and show the proof in the pudding directly in America.
I'm all for legalizing weed. But I'm also looking at its impact on this nation as a whole. How will it impact our other national policies? Cherry picking the success that Portugal may have had on this narrow area with regards to weeds while ignoring that Portugal is a mess of a nation doesn't really bolster any confidence of legalizing weed being good for a nation.
Maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see how one thing has anything to do with the other. It's hardly cherry-picking, I think, to cite a so-far successful program that has had an enormous positive effect on (I believe) the European country with the highest addiction rates, among other negatives such as HIV infections and crime.
It's a pretty good lesson that changing the viewpoint on how a society perceives drug use (a moral or a health issue) can create positive change.
It's a pretty good lesson that changing the viewpoint on how a society perceives drug use (a moral or a health issue) can create positive change.
I see your point regarding addiction, etc. However, my point is a bit more broad and also address what was stated earlier on this thread about the positive effects of legalizing weed on our economy, criminal justice system, etc. When you look at the narrow effects on addiction rate as result of legalizing weed, Portugal does look like a good example. However, when you look at a broader impact of legalizing weed on Portugal's domestic success, it's not all that great or negligible at best, imo.
Quote:
In comment 12344509 glowrider said:
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
Quote:
with a beneficent outcome.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
No, it's not. Not at all. The Constitution via certain amendments states that there are certain fundamental rights that are so important they are not subject to democracy. It is precisely the role of the Court determine which rights fall on either side of that divide.
If you truly believe your argument you must also think it's ok to ban marriage between different races. Or to say it's ok to put people in jail for homosexual acts. Or to say only people who own property should be allowed to vote. Those were all historically accepted positions in this country at one time, so I assume you think none of those laws would violate the Constitution either?
Please explain what is so different about saying the Constitution does not allow states to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry?
You either believe in the Constituton as written or not. I guess u missed the 10th Ammendment. I personally don't give a rats ass about this and have no issue with the ruling morally but that damn 10th is pretty fucking clear. It's just easier to ignore it for those who enjoy the judiciary enacting law.
Quote:
with a beneficent outcome.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
No, it's not. Not at all. The Constitution via certain amendments states that there are certain fundamental rights that are so important they are not subject to democracy. It is precisely the role of the Court determine which rights fall on either side of that divide.
If you truly believe your argument you must also think it's ok to ban marriage between different races. Or to say it's ok to put people in jail for homosexual acts. Or to say only people who own property should be allowed to vote. Those were all historically accepted positions in this country at one time, so I assume you think none of those laws would violate the Constitution either?
Please explain what is so different about saying the Constitution does not allow states to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the right to marry?
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
Quote:
Maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see how one thing has anything to do with the other. It's hardly cherry-picking, I think, to cite a so-far successful program that has had an enormous positive effect on (I believe) the European country with the highest addiction rates, among other negatives such as HIV infections and crime.
It's a pretty good lesson that changing the viewpoint on how a society perceives drug use (a moral or a health issue) can create positive change.
I see your point regarding addiction, etc. However, my point is a bit more broad and also address what was stated earlier on this thread about the positive effects of legalizing weed on our economy, criminal justice system, etc. When you look at the narrow effects on addiction rate as result of legalizing weed, Portugal does look like a good example. However, when you look at a broader impact of legalizing weed on Portugal's domestic success, it's not all that great or negligible at best, imo.
Ah, OK. I haven't advocated decriminalization/legalization as a path to economic gains. I do think gains can be achieved, but the bigger positives are the reduction in the obscene amounts of resources that are piled into the WoD (War on Drugs), reduction in the overall crime rate (up to 70% of crime here is directly or tangentially associated with drugs), and the positive affect on people's lives by not having to serve ridiculous sentences and then having the felony millstone hung around their necks.
I hear you. And I'm all about legalizing weed (that's strange coming from someone in my position, huh?) and see the benefits of it in the area you are speaking of.
By the way, how will legalizing weed impact our national obesity rate?...;) I heard that you do get some major munchies as well as being too high to work out.