Octopus Overlords

To me one of the biggest hypocrisies is our drug war. We throw people in jail for smoking a joint yet alcohol which is a more dangerous drug and spurs much more dangerous behavior to certain individuals when abused let alone what the abuse does to their bodies is legal.

That we continue to demonize marijuana while saying alcohol is aok to sell is to me silly and young people in particular see right through the hypocrisy.

Anyway myself I just think it's too ingrained into our psyche that marijuana is a demon drug and all hell would break loose if made legal so good luck ever seeing it made legal to buy and the power and incentive taken away from the drug lords (like prohibition during the 20's), but just wondering what others think.

If it hasn't been legalized by now, and with so many even opposed to medical marijuana, than no, it never will be.

Noone is thrown in jail for smoking a joint.

Unless you do it stupidly -- like in front of the cops.

Like I've argued before, we're getting less tolerant of smoking cigarettes and DWI. I wouldn't hold your breath, even if you've inhaled.

I assume you mean in the US? Because it's already legal lots of other places. I expected it to end up de-facto legal in CA, and then spread from there. It's like gay marriage plus tax revenues.

tgb wrote:If it hasn't been legalized by now, and with so many even opposed to medical marijuana, than no, it never will be.

Never is a big word. In the foreseeable future, no. In my lifetime? Probably not. Never? Nah. Philosophies change over time, and we allow things today that a century ago would have been unimaginable.

There are degrees of "legal".

In my youth possession was decriminalized in many jurisdictions -- technically punishable by confiscation and a fine, but in reality widely ignored. I once passed a joint to a cop at a rock concert...he didn't pass it back, just asked if I had any more and dropped the subject when I said No. We used to light up in bars (it was easy to get away with that when cigarettes were legal). I have half a dozen other stories about getting caught and released...and only one story about actually being busted.

Reagan's drug war changed things in the 80s, by which time cocaine had gained middle-class respectability. Crack ruined that and drove the counterculture back underground. This was partly because of an uptick in moralizing (remember "traditional family values"?), and partly because the cocaine trade (crack especially) turned violent. Most people lump all drugs together and so marijuana tolerance all but disappeared. Decriminalized jurisdictions re-criminalized and pot smokers had to get sneaky again.

Pot started to come back out of the closet when Clinton admitted to having tried it (although he didn't inhale), and people realized that an awful lot of Boomers in high places (tee-hee) either had a druggy past or were still firing up the occasional doobie. Laws didn't change but tolerance made a comeback in the 90s.

Now we find medical marijuana legal in many states and pot's classification as a Schedule 1 drug (no medicinal value) very hard to justify in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Some states (including MA) have decriminalized simple possession again. And CA has outright legalization on this November's ballot. The current social climate is more tolerant than any I've seen since the 1970s, and the laws are more lenient than at any time since prohibition.

Will marijuana ever be openly sold and taxed nationwide? Maybe not. Will it become legal in some states? Probably. The current trend is going in that direction. If CA legalizes, and the feds keep their distance, other states will follow. If enough states go down that path then Washington will probably reschedule pot into a harmless category -- did you know that the DEA and FDA can do that without an act of Congress? A simple presidential order would do the trick (thanks, Nixon!)

I foresee the federal government eventually leaving marijuana policy up to the states, reducing its classification, and staying out of enforcement. That would result in a patchwork of legality depending on individual states' tolerance. Outright legalization on a national level, however, would take an act of Congress and seems unlikely.

Marijuana is currently a Schedule 1 drug, which is blatantly wrong in light of current medical practice:

A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."

If you oppose its use, you'd probably tolerate dropping it to Schedule 3:

(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.

(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence."

If you favor it, you can make a strong case that Schedule 4 is more appropriate:

A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.

(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III."

Probably, yes (at least at the state level).

Under Prop. 19, Californians will be voting for/against legalization this November. So far, most of the polling seems to indicate the measure will pass.

Very informative post Kraken!

For reference both cocaine and opium are listed as Schedule II drugs along with the Ritalin and other amphetamines that many parents give to their children. When you look at the DEA schedules (DEA Drug Scheduling), it looks like one of those "which item doesn't belong here" puzzles. Marijuana on any of the five schedules is silly. Listing it on Schedule I is ridiculous and indefensible.

I've never seen as much support for legalization of marijuana in my entire life, and that includes the 70's. I've always said that once a significant number of people who favor legalization felt safe in publicly stating that view, there would be a good chance that the idea would snowball. Never before in my life have I seen anything other than one person, usually a NORML spokesperson, stating a pro-legalization opinion on TV. It has become a regular occurrence on Fox News to see several people, including their regular staff, trumpet a pro-legalization opinion.

(pause for effect)

The chances that anyone here watches Fox News enough to have noticed this is remote, so this shift has obviously gone unnoticed. The idea that it was cool to state a pro-legalization opinion started on Fox Business because that channel has taken a decidedly libertarian (both the big and little "L" varieties) position in the past two years. That view has been slowly bleeding over to the news channel recently. It is now not unusual to see 3 to 5 panelists speak in favor of legalization.

The most humorous aspect is when you mix this neo-libertarian stance with those on the channel who are staunch "social conservatives". A couple of months ago Judge Napolitano was sitting in with the morning crew discussing Ca. prop 19. When the weather-dude asked Napolitano if he'd like to see all drugs legalized, hoping to force the issue to an extreme in order to score his point against legalization, Napolitano answered with an emphatic "Yes!" The three hosts basically 'shit their pants' trying to get the discussion back under control. Napolitano didn't cooperate. He kept up his explanation for legalization based on a "liberty argument" while scolding the three hosts all the way to the commercial break.

The more people who state a pro-legalization opinion in a very matter of fact way, the greater the chance that prohibitionists will become marginalized. The legalization idea will snowball if a critical mass of people publicly challenge prohibition. Demonization and fear have been the cornerstone of the prohibition stance since the beginning, and those two tools are easily countered when people refuse to be affected. This is the first time in my life that I've seen a large enough population refuse to be swayed by the demonization of the prohibitionists.

There should be an option for: depends on the state

msduncan wrote:There should be an option for: depends on the state

I imagine it getting down to the county/town level, like alcohol. There are lots of "dry" towns (including Lynchburg, TN, where my precious Jack Daniels is made).

Take, for instance, Los Angeles County. There are plenty of incorporated cities in the county where it's legal to open a pot dispensary, but the county itself is doing everything it can to shut down all but a few of the ones in the unincorporated areas.

BTW, my vote will be "yes" in November.

X gen already doesn't care. Y gen treats and beyond pot like booze. I'd guess by the time Generation Why dies, pot and booze will be regarded with the same level of legality.

One of our vendors is from California and he is very confident that Prop. 19 will pass this fall.

Of course, like my granddad used to say, "A long time ago the earth tilted and all the fruits and nuts rolled to California."

YellowKing wrote:One of our vendors is from California and he is very confident that Prop. 19 will pass this fall.

Of course, like my granddad used to say, "A long time ago the earth tilted and all the fruits and nuts rolled to California."

Around here it was just called the great bowl of cereal. Take out the fruits and the nuts and you still got the flakes. And then after high school we just watched migrate there one by one...

I wish they would take teh alcoholz away too. And yes I'm serious.

Thus confirming my guess that you are no fun at parties .

Crux wrote:I wish they would take teh alcoholz away too. And yes I'm serious.

And sterilize all the people too. We get it. Crux is smarter than everyone else. We should just make you dictator and then it would be utopia.

It's legality is inevitable, even if it becomes a state-by-state thing.

noxiousdog wrote:

Crux wrote:I wish they would take teh alcoholz away too. And yes I'm serious.

And sterilize all the people too. We get it. Crux is smarter than everyone else. We should just make you dictator and then it would be utopia.

What's with all the hostility?

Crux wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Crux wrote:I wish they would take teh alcoholz away too. And yes I'm serious.

And sterilize all the people too. We get it. Crux is smarter than everyone else. We should just make you dictator and then it would be utopia.

What's with all the hostility?

I don't like authoritarians.

noxiousdog wrote:

Crux wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Crux wrote:I wish they would take teh alcoholz away too. And yes I'm serious.

And sterilize all the people too. We get it. Crux is smarter than everyone else. We should just make you dictator and then it would be utopia.

What's with all the hostility?

I don't like authoritarians.

I don't like drunk drivers and alcoholics. Are we even now? In the other thread, I was talking about what I think it will take to save the human race from themselves at this juncture. My wife just gave birth to our second child, so it's not like I *want* to sterilize mankind. Overpopulation is the reason we aren't having a third child and I'll be getting the snip sometime soon. It's not like I've ever said anything about putting me in charge. And as far as the alcohol thing goes, it's my opinion. I think giving people legal access to drugs that inhibit judgment, perception, and alter behavior for recreational purposes is a bad idea. Especially when we then rely on their judgment for them not to get behind the wheel of a car or do something else stupid. It's my opinion. I don't shove it down people's throats, or try to get myself elected to office so I can enforce it in any way. It's just an opinion, and I shared it.

I just don't get where me having an opinion on something deserves the line 'Crux is smarter than everyone else. We should just make you dictator and then it would be utopia.' There's just no need to be an ass about it.

Maybe it's just that I have naive warmfuzzy ideas about the potential of humanity, but consequences and responsibility are things that can be taught. They just frequently aren't. Making things illegal generally doesn't fix that problem, but it does make it harder to talk about them with your kids, for example.

The more I think about it, I'm not completely against recreational drugs being legal. But I think if they are legal, their use needs to be tightly controlled. You go to a licensed facility. Purchase your drugs there. Use them there. Do not get to leave until the effects have worn off. Then you can fuck up your own body and life as much as you want, but you don't pose a danger to other people in the process! Everyone wins

Crux wrote:The more I think about it, I'm not completely against recreational drugs being legal. But I think if they are legal, their use needs to be tightly controlled. You go to a licensed facility. Purchase your drugs there. Use them there. Do not get to leave until the effects have worn off. Then you can fuck up your own body and life as much as you want, but you don't pose a danger to other people in the process! Everyone wins

I don't like tightly controlling them but then I do like giving maximum or more than maximum punishments for committing crimes while in use, and this goes quadupably so violent crimes. While everyone doesn't "win" this way. Everyone doesn't win people commit any crimes.

silverjon wrote:Maybe it's just that I have naive warmfuzzy ideas about the potential of humanity, but consequences and responsibility are things that can be taught. They just frequently aren't.

Even when they are taught, that information is generally not very well put to use. I went through all the same education as everyone I know and I don't think I know anyone outside of myself and a few others who haven't tried anything beyond alcohol/tobacco or pot and currently only drink alcohol in extreme moderation. I know a few people who have overdosed and died on harder drugs, a couple who have done jail time for drug related charges and know multiple people with one or more DUIs under their belt. Even when looking at education at home outside of school and DARE programs, it took my brother two DUIs to realize he probably shouldn't drink at all if he's driving and I'm pretty sure the only reason he's careful about it now is the fear of permanently losing his driver's license.

Everyone was told what would happen if they started using drugs and they almost all did it anyway and most do it or have done it not responsibly even after seeing friends and family die, go to jail or have their lives fall apart largely due to them.

That said, I'm opposed to the legislation and criminalization of the sale/possession/use of drugs. I do plenty of things that people have died from or been seriously injured doing that most people would consider crazy and I'm not going to begrudge others the chance to have fun in their own way. I do wish people were more willing to put some thought into the safety and well being of those around them before doing things like getting behind the wheel while under the influence. Laws against that do need to be in place and do need to have much more extreme punishments than they currently do.

Crux wrote: I don't like drunk drivers and alcoholics. Are we even now?

Just wanted to clarify because I realized this could be read differently than I intended it. I am not trying to call ND a drunk driver or an alcoholic. I just meant there were things I don't like too, but it doesn't give me the right to be a jerk to people who might not be either.

I know some people who use "soft" drugs in moderation, some who use them more than and more irresponsibly than I'm comfortable with, and some people who have abused harder drugs in the past. My uncle was a meth addict about 30 years before it was cool. I married a recovering crack addict who would now be at 14 years of not using, basically the same amount of time as we've been together. Both of them stopped because they finally wanted to; no other reason was ever going to cut it. I am not entirely full of shit on the subject of addictions, though I do think personal strength has a lot more to do with quitting than 12-step programs are willing to give credit.

I do think that there needs to be legislation in place to back up what we call responsible use. Driving under the influence should be punishable, because it's demonstrably dangerous. Consumption in public places is not such a good idea, not least of all for the protection of the user. As Jack Kerouac wrote, "Never get drunk outside your home." (But he wasn't very good at following his own advice.)

Some drugs don't let you use them responsibly, and I'd argue vehemently that open dialogue about which ones can be indulged in moderation and which ones absolutely can't is vital. If we go with the stance that everyone eventually figures out that every authority figure in their life lied to them about the evils of pot, then... what else did they misrepresent? And how do I figure it out for myself?

Crux wrote:

Crux wrote: I don't like drunk drivers and alcoholics. Are we even now?

Just wanted to clarify because I realized this could be read differently than I intended it. I am not trying to call ND a drunk driver or an alcoholic. I just meant there were things I don't like too, but it doesn't give me the right to be a jerk to people who might not be either.

And yet, that's exactly what you're doing. You're saying people aren't smart enough to control their vices and therefore Crux gets to decide which vices are allowable and which aren't. That list will always boil down to what Crux likes vs what Crux dislikes.

Perhaps you're perfect and have no vices. The rest of us would like those vices to remain legal, and only prosecute when it affects other people.

For instance for a harm to humanity standpoint, there is a good case to be made that premarital sex is harmful to society based on both children that grow up without a parent as well as the rampant spread of disease. Yet, I doubt you're all that interested in outlawing it, and wouldn't think very fondly of someone that would.

noxiousdog wrote: And yet, that's exactly what you're doing. You're saying people aren't smart enough to control their vices

Can you do me a favor and quote the post where I said that?

Crux gets to decide which vices are allowable and which aren't.

Or that.

For instance for a harm to humanity standpoint, there is a good case to be made that premarital sex is harmful to society based on both children that grow up without a parent as well as the rampant spread of disease. Yet, I doubt you're all that interested in outlawing it, and wouldn't think very fondly of someone that would.

Seriously? That's the best you could come up with?

That didn't take long to backpeddle.

How else am I supposed to interpret

Crux wrote: I wish they would take teh alcoholz away too. And yes I'm serious.

because

Crux wrote: I don't like drunk drivers and alcoholics.

?

You also said:

Just wanted to add also that I think the only hope planet earth has it if, in the relatively near future (10-20 years), they put a hard cap of one child born per couple. Once you have fathered or carried a child, you get sterilized.

Not penalized. Not taxed. Sterilized. You didn't even leave it open ended. You said sterilized. That's my children you're talking about.

Because why? Because YOU think something. Not "evidence says", or "experts have recommended".

And you're bothered because someone calls you out on being an authoritarian? Seriously?

Crux wrote:

For instance for a harm to humanity standpoint, there is a good case to be made that premarital sex is harmful to society based on both children that grow up without a parent as well as the rampant spread of disease. Yet, I doubt you're all that interested in outlawing it, and wouldn't think very fondly of someone that would.

Seriously? That's the best you could come up with?

Yeah. Funny how morality laws look ridiculous when it's something you don't have a beef with isn't it?

Crux wrote:I don't shove it down people's throats, or try to get myself elected to office so I can enforce it in any way.

But you are trying to shove your opinion down other people's throats, just as I'm trying to shove my pro-legalization stance down other peoples' throats. That is what we do here; it is the reason that this sub-forum exists. Also, in our system of government you don't have to get elected to office to have a say in the creation or enforcement of legislation. Simply participating in open discussions has a bit of sway in how we govern ourselves, voting for representatives who echo your opinion has a greater impact, petitioning those representatives has a slightly larger impact, and voting directly on legislation ala CA propositions has an absolute effect on said legislation.

You don't get to state your opinion and then claim that it has zero impact on the discussion, nor do you get to state your opinion while remaining free from comment and repercussions.

I think ND has expressed the counter point to yours in a completely logical and rational manner. My initial response wouldn't have been as nice.

noxiousdog wrote:That didn't take long to backpeddle.

I'm not backpedaling at all. I still wish they would criminalize alcohol. But I don't advocate for it, I don't vote based on it, and I generally barely even talk about it. My stance isn't any different.

How else am I supposed to interpret

Crux wrote: I wish they would take teh alcoholz away too. And yes I'm serious.

because

Crux wrote: I don't like drunk drivers and alcoholics.

?

For one, you could start by not splicing together different posts where one is not offered as a 'because' for the other? That might be a good beginning point. Then, you could interpret my statement that I wish they would make alcohol illegal at its face value, because it is true. And you could take my flip, throwaway comment about not liking drunk drivers and alcoholics as a flip, throwaway comment. But I guess that would take all the fun out of quoting people out of context for your own agenda, wouldn't it?

You also said:

Just wanted to add also that I think the only hope planet earth has it if, in the relatively near future (10-20 years), they put a hard cap of one child born per couple. Once you have fathered or carried a child, you get sterilized.

Not penalized. Not taxed. Sterilized. You didn't even leave it open ended. You said sterilized. That's my children you're talking about.

Because why? Because YOU think something. Not "evidence says", or "experts have recommended".

Read the quote again. I said I think it might be the only hope planet earth has. I didn't say I wanted to see it done, I didn't say I'm in favor of it and I didn't say I'd vote for someone who proposed it. It genuinely is my opinion that it might be the only hope planet earth has at this juncture. I really still don't know how I feel about it - part of me thinks we need to do something to ensure the survival of the planet and our species... and part of me hopes that we can do better than that by ourselves and find another way. But this isn't something I'm "for".

It's like saying "I think the only way the Lions can win the Superbowl this year is by killing all of the other teams" is somehow me advocating mass murder. It isn't. It's just an opinion on the state of things.

And you're bothered because someone calls you out on being an authoritarian? Seriously?

I am when you do it in this manner.

Yeah. Funny how morality laws look ridiculous when it's something you don't have a beef with isn't it?

I thought it was poor, not because I don't have a beef with it, but because it was a poorly thought out example that was barely, if at all relevant. None of your sarcasm is going to change that.

But you are trying to shove your opinion down other people's throats

I made a single post that comprised of One sentence and one word, simply stating my belief without even an effort to convince others of its validity, and that constitutes "Shoving it down your throat"?

I think ND has expressed the counter point to yours in a completely logical and rational manner. My initial response wouldn't have been as nice.

So if someone has an opinion that is contrary to yours, even if they are polite about it, it's ok to be belligerent?

Crux wrote: So if someone has an opinion that is contrary to yours, even if they are polite about it, it's ok to be belligerent?

I don't consider it polite for someone to wish for the criminalization of an activity that I consider enjoyable and which I partake -- the consumption of alcohol. But then again I have a "problem with authority." YMMV

YellowKing wrote:One of our vendors is from California and he is very confident that Prop. 19 will pass this fall.

Of course, like my granddad used to say, "A long time ago the earth tilted and all the fruits and nuts rolled to California."

All the relevant cereals I've had, take out the fruit and nuts It tastes like shit even if it is healthy for you.

* I'm also with Mullen and ND on this one Crux. Take a quick pause and reread your original posts. It reminds me of a friend, Most moral and ethical person I know but when he takes his logic for a spin he comes across as a raging douche, (birth limits, forced contraceptives, anti gay marriage because it's purely a procreational thing). Arguments that in a vacuum hold up but when taken in a cultural context don't.

edit: I love R&P but it doesn't help that the only time I can pay real attention is late at night when I celebrate the weekend....

One thing I haven't heard mentioned yet is how marijuana is legal in many first nation countries already. Up here in Canada, it is technically illegal, but really only if you are a seller. I know several guys who grow their own and have for years. I've been in groups where some are smoking and running into police, they just ignore it. And it's got to be hard for America to ignore the growing evidence that society can do just fine with moderate marijuana use.

For the record, I don't smoke at all. But that's more to do with losing my father to cancer and personally refusing to suck any foreign particles up into my lungs if I can avoid it. As others have mentioned on this thread, I know some guys who smoke, and I know some guys who drink. I really don't understand why the one is legal while the other is not. *shrug*

terrified

One word, brownies.

Crux wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Crux wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Crux wrote:I wish they would take teh alcoholz away too. And yes I'm serious.

And sterilize all the people too. We get it. Crux is smarter than everyone else. We should just make you dictator and then it would be utopia.

What's with all the hostility?

I don't like authoritarians.

I don't like drunk drivers and alcoholics. Are we even now? In the other thread, I was talking about what I think it will take to save the human race from themselves at this juncture. My wife just gave birth to our second child, so it's not like I *want* to sterilize mankind. Overpopulation is the reason we aren't having a third child and I'll be getting the snip sometime soon. It's not like I've ever said anything about putting me in charge. And as far as the alcohol thing goes, it's my opinion. I think giving people legal access to drugs that inhibit judgment, perception, and alter behavior for recreational purposes is a bad idea. Especially when we then rely on their judgment for them not to get behind the wheel of a car or do something else stupid. It's my opinion. I don't shove it down people's throats, or try to get myself elected to office so I can enforce it in any way. It's just an opinion, and I shared it.

I just don't get where me having an opinion on something deserves the line 'Crux is smarter than everyone else. We should just make you dictator and then it would be utopia.' There's just no need to be an ass about it.

That sounds completely reasonable. I don't know why the Discovery Channel hasn't been listening to you.

Terrified wrote:I really don't understand why the one is legal while the other is not. *shrug*

You can drink a beer or a glass of wine or a shot and not get drunk... or heck even buzzed. You can't smoke a joint without getting high. Unless it's bad pot.

Combustible Lemur wrote:* I'm also with Mullen and ND on this one Crux. Take a quick pause and reread your original posts. It reminds me of a friend, Most moral and ethical person I know but when he takes his logic for a spin he comes across as a raging douche, (birth limits, forced contraceptives, anti gay marriage because it's purely a procreational thing). Arguments that in a vacuum hold up but when taken in a cultural context don't.

edit: I love R&P but it doesn't help that the only time I can pay real attention is late at night when I celebrate the weekend....

I get that my opinion that alcohol is really shitty for society as a whole isn't a popular one, and can be viewed as authoritarian by some people. But understand again, I am not of the belief that I want to start sterilizing people after they have a child. I've never said I was. I simply said I think it might be the only chance the human race has to survive long-term. I'm hoping it isn't.

I still don't see anything I wrote that deserves such belligerence in ND's responses. I've never claimed to be smarter than anyone else, or sat there and argued passionately to have something happen (ie shoving my thoughts down other peoples throats). If thinking alcohol sucks is enough to make me an authoritarian then so be it.

Crux wrote:If thinking alcohol sucks is enough to make me an authoritarian then so be it.

This doesn't make you an authoritarian...

Crux wrote:I wish they would take teh alcoholz away too. And yes I'm serious.

THIS makes you an authoritarian.

That point was made earlier in the thread, why didn't you get it then?