Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Obama blunder 2 fail 2 de-escalate Drug War?


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#16    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 23 March 2013 - 08:37 PM

View PostKowalski, on 23 March 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

Republican, is FOR decriminalization of marijuana. So were many others at CPAC.

Easy to say for the camera but it's not happening in Congress.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#17    sear

sear

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Joined:04 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adirondack Park, NY

  • "A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James

Posted 23 March 2013 - 10:30 PM

View Postninjadude, on 23 March 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

Easy to say for the camera but it's not happening in Congress.
So it might have seemed just a few short years ago.
But many Congressional Republicans are over a barrel because of their Norquist pledge.

$75 $Bil isn't chump change. That's an amount of money worth saving.

Over a dozen U.S. States already have medical marijuana, many of them by plebescite, not statute. That means the legislature didn't provide it. The electorate went to the polls and voted for it.

In addition to those dozens, Colorado and Washington State have decriminalized marijuana for recreational use.

They're not leading the charge. Europe has gotten more sensible about Drug War too.

The handwriting is on the wall.

Dire predictions were made about what would happen with medical marijuana, and decriminalized recreational use.
I haven't read any indications any of those dire predictions have come to pass.

Ending the Drug War may be an economic necessity. Shame on any U.S. legislator that thinks martial oppression of U.S. citizens is a higher priority than caring for our children's health and education.


#18    The Unseen

The Unseen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,774 posts
  • Joined:24 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male

  • Whats out there?

Posted 24 March 2013 - 08:49 AM

Like Sear said,trillions have been spent and what is the outcome?
Thousands more dead,Very few busts,and a lot of our money being pocketed in someone elses wallet
None of this drug war spending or Drug war fighting is doing any good except more spending,for what,to make someone get more votes to be placed in office >Then when in office they serve their term only to bring up War on Drugs againg when said term is almost over,And were the stupid people that keep doing it,Dang it.We ALL FAILED when we put Obama in Office,we are destened to faill again the next time too,we just dont learn from our mistakes.


#19    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,405 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 24 March 2013 - 09:00 AM

I think a low-key government attitude about harmful drugs should be policy.  For things like tobacco and alcohol and marijuana, probably non-profit government monopolies where there is no advertising and no profit motive but availability to meet demand at cost.

For addictive drugs, prescription availability to known addicts and criminal action against distribution (but not absurd things like executions).  More usually just fines big enough to take out the profit.

I think the various anti-drug campaigns ("Just say no") are silly and counterproductive, creating curiosity where there might otherwise be none.  Drug education has to be part of the curriuculum, but in a scientifc, not a "scare them" way, and being careful to stick to scientific truth so as to maintain credibility.


#20    sear

sear

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Joined:04 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adirondack Park, NY

  • "A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James

Posted 24 March 2013 - 11:13 AM

Quote

  National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment"--was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure
The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.[1]
Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that much stronger.[2]

http://www.cato.org/...s/pa-157.html  
Cato says the previous one was a failure.
Why would we expect the current one to be any different?


#21    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 24 March 2013 - 12:55 PM

What are they going to do with all those private prisons if they legalize marijuana.  Private prisons have their own lobbyists to make sure it isn't legalized.

Plus you have government officials that use it but vote against its legalization even for medical use like this GOP New York Assemblyman.

Anti-marijuana New York assemblyman busted for weed possession

I hope they never legalized drugs like Meth.

Edited by Hilander, 24 March 2013 - 12:57 PM.


#22    sear

sear

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Joined:04 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adirondack Park, NY

  • "A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James

Posted 24 March 2013 - 01:43 PM

Quote

"I hope they never legalized drugs like Meth." Hi
I agree that meth is a hideous drug.

But that's the point. When all recreational drugs are illegal, then using any of them is a crime.

Drugs such as meth and crack seem to be products of prohibition. Prohibition makes matters worse.


#23    MissMelsWell

MissMelsWell

    Cosmic Baker

  • Member
  • 13,259 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 24 March 2013 - 04:32 PM

View Postsear, on 23 March 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

So it might have seemed just a few short years ago.
But many Congressional Republicans are over a barrel because of their Norquist pledge.

$75 $Bil isn't chump change. That's an amount of money worth saving.

Over a dozen U.S. States already have medical marijuana, many of them by plebescite, not statute. That means the legislature didn't provide it. The electorate went to the polls and voted for it.

In addition to those dozens, Colorado and Washington State have decriminalized marijuana for recreational use.

They're not leading the charge. Europe has gotten more sensible about Drug War too.

The handwriting is on the wall.

Dire predictions were made about what would happen with medical marijuana, and decriminalized recreational use.
I haven't read any indications any of those dire predictions have come to pass.

Ending the Drug War may be an economic necessity. Shame on any U.S. legislator that thinks martial oppression of U.S. citizens is a higher priority than caring for our children's health and education.

Not to be a nitpicker... but Washington and Colorado didn't decriminalize marijuana.... we legalized it. It's more or less been decriminalized in both places for over a decade. There's actually a significant difference between legalization and decriminalization.

In November of 2012, after it was legalized in Washington, the DA's knocked all pending marijuana charges and cases off the books. Because it's been decriminalized here for a very long time, they only knocked the charges off of less than 100 cases and in those cases, none of them were solitary offences. They were charges appended to other charges. For example, DUI and marijuana possession, or assault and marijuana possession. They didn't release any inmates for marijuana charges because there weren't any.

In December of 2012, it was totally legal to possess and use marijuana, I haven't seen any changes around the city... in fact, I might be seeing LESS overt public usage than I did before.

Come November of 2013, the state of Washington (I don't know about Colorado) will open state run pot stores, just like the state used to operate liquor stores here. They will manage distribution, manage growers and act as quality control. The state will literally become the cartel here. LOL. From the news articles I've been reading, there are many countries VERY upset with that around the world. Mexico, Bolivia, Venezuala, Peru, Honduras etc... imagine that.

So far, the federal government hasn't stepped in to say or do anything about it in either Colorado or Washington... I'm cautiously optimistic they're actually going to let it ride and see what happens. I believe that come 2014, we'll see several more states legalize... in 2014, I'm going to predict it will be Oregon, California, Mass, Nevada, Ohio, and New Mexico.

Edited by MissMelsWell, 24 March 2013 - 04:43 PM.

"It's time for the American people to stand up and shrug off the shackles of our government at TSA at the airport"  Ron Paul

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

#24    sear

sear

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Joined:04 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adirondack Park, NY

  • "A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James

Posted 24 March 2013 - 05:16 PM

It's a point worth making CB.

Bananas are "legal". A citizen needn't be an adult to buy a banana, display valid ID as proof of age; unlike cigarettes, beer, or I'm guessing, marijuana.
And a 12 year old Colorodan can own a truck-load of bananas. As long as s/he isn't blocking traffic with it, no problem.

I gather if an adult citizen got caught in Colorado with a tractor-trailor full of marijuana, there'd be a problem (though I haven't read the statute; I've read anecdotally that the decriminalization is for personal use amounts, an oz. perhaps).

Quote

"So far, the federal government hasn't stepped in to say or do anything about it in either Colorado or Washington" CB
I gather President Obama, and Attorney General Erik Holder have already said that was not going to happen. It seems the feds don't have enough resources for that, without dispatching the 82nd Airborne Division.

When any citizen regardless of age can own and possess unlimited quantities of marijuana, I'll embrace your term "legalize".


#25    MissMelsWell

MissMelsWell

    Cosmic Baker

  • Member
  • 13,259 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 24 March 2013 - 05:53 PM

View Postsear, on 24 March 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

It's a point worth making CB.

Bananas are "legal". A citizen needn't be an adult to buy a banana, display valid ID as proof of age; unlike cigarettes, beer, or I'm guessing, marijuana.
And a 12 year old Colorodan can own a truck-load of bananas. As long as s/he isn't blocking traffic with it, no problem.

I gather if an adult citizen got caught in Colorado with a tractor-trailor full of marijuana, there'd be a problem (though I haven't read the statute; I've read anecdotally that the decriminalization is for personal use amounts, an oz. perhaps).

I gather President Obama, and Attorney General Erik Holder have already said that was not going to happen. It seems the feds don't have enough resources for that, without dispatching the 82nd Airborne Division.

When any citizen regardless of age can own and possess unlimited quantities of marijuana, I'll embrace your term "legalize".

Then I guess by your definition of legalized, alcohol isn't either.

Washington State's pot laws are going to look a lot like their alcohol laws prior to June 2012. When the state owned, operated and distributed all alcohol. Voters kicked the state OUT of the monopolized alcohol business and put the in the state instead in charge of the new pot monopoly.

It remains to be seen how tight the state will be regarding enforcement or even what all the limitations will be. The fine detail laws regarding pot have not been defined yet. The state is still working that out.

Part of the reason they have limitations on how much you can possess is an attempt to keep people from exporting it to other states. This is a GOOD thing believe it or not. It's giving other states a chance to pass their own legalization laws. I think Washington and Colorado are going to be tough on their possession laws and be very rigid about making sure, to the best of their ability, that it doesn't leak over the state lines in any massive quantities. Not because they think that would be a bad thing, but to show the Feds that it's all manageable and to give other states the opportunity to legalize it too. Baby steps... baby steps.

Frankly, when the state takes over the manufacturing, distribution and sales of a formally illegal substance and turning a profit and collecting taxes on the sales, that's legalization not decriminalization. Decriminalization means that the substance is illegal, but no one is super interested in prosecuting minor offenses, but can if they feel like it. This is what Washington has been doing the prior decade. It worked well. Now, it's hopefully going to be even better.

As a voter in Washington state, one who doesn't use marijuana, but DID vote for the legalization, I would NOT want it to be a free-for-all... just like I don't want alcohol, cigarettes or other substances to be a free-for-all... I'm not an anarchist, I'm a realist.


IF and only IF the Feds decide to come after Washington and Colorado, they better do it FAST (before 2014) and it won't be in the form of raids by the DEA. It'll come in a lot more subtle ways... the Feds will deny federal highway funds and grants, they'll stop funding for education at the federal level, they'll stop insuring banks who deal with the monies associated with the trade... IF they decide to do anything, they'll do it in a backdoor manner and make it really really hard for the states to operate financially. There will be no guns a-blazin' by DHS, DEA, ATF, or FBI.

Edited by MissMelsWell, 24 March 2013 - 06:28 PM.

"It's time for the American people to stand up and shrug off the shackles of our government at TSA at the airport"  Ron Paul

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

#26    MissMelsWell

MissMelsWell

    Cosmic Baker

  • Member
  • 13,259 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 24 March 2013 - 06:23 PM

View Postsear, on 24 March 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:


I gather if an adult citizen got caught in Colorado with a tractor-trailor full of marijuana, there'd be a problem (though I haven't read the statute; I've read anecdotally that the decriminalization is for personal use amounts, an oz. perhaps).


If someone was caught with a tractor trailor of Jaggermeister or Marlboros in Washington there'd be a problem. As a private citizen, you can't transport that much without a distributors license.

"It's time for the American people to stand up and shrug off the shackles of our government at TSA at the airport"  Ron Paul

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

#27    sear

sear

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Joined:04 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adirondack Park, NY

  • "A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James

Posted 24 March 2013 - 09:48 PM

Quote

"Then I guess by your definition of legalized, alcohol isn't either." MW
Right.
It was criminalized ("Prohibition"), and now they've arranged to allow most adults buy it, but not minors. Beverage ethanol is decriminalized. Simply possessing it isn't automatically illegal (unless you're a minor, have an open container in a car, etc).

Quote

"distributors license." MW
Yes. "Decriminalized". Not a crime, if you're within the law. Under federal "Schedule 1", even pharmaceutical labs and prestigious universities couldn't research it.

It's how we treat boogymen in the U.S.

Quote

"As a voter in Washington state, one who doesn't use marijuana, but DID vote for the legalization" MW
Wise move.

Congrats. to you for not succumbing to the Drug War propaganda. You are in the vanguard, leading your nation and People out of the dark ages. We are in your debt.


#28    MissMelsWell

MissMelsWell

    Cosmic Baker

  • Member
  • 13,259 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 24 March 2013 - 11:17 PM

View Postsear, on 24 March 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

Right.
It was criminalized ("Prohibition"), and now they've arranged to allow most adults buy it, but not minors. Beverage ethanol is decriminalized. Simply possessing it isn't automatically illegal (unless you're a minor, have an open container in a car, etc).

I don't mean to get pushy here, but you clearly don't know what the definition of decriminalized is. Or are choosing to use your own definition.

Decriminalized is when something is illegal, but the DA refuses to prosecute it should someone possess or use it. For the last 10 years, pot has been totally decriminalized in Seattle. No cop would arrest you and throw you in the clink for having pot on you (less than an ounce) although the law on the books said they could. The DA simply refused to bring those cases in front of a judge. And honestly, any Seattle cop that tried to arrest someone for pot possession would be in BIG trouble with their superiors for trying.

Legalization is when it's simply legal. The state will sell it, license growers, manage distribution... totally legal at the state level.

What you're describing is Legalization without Regulation which is just stupid and I would never have agreed to such a measure. Legalization without regulation would be chaos and I think the state should make money on it through taxation. Legalization without regulation would make that impossible.

Quote

Yes. "Decriminalized". Not a crime, if you're within the law. Under federal "Schedule 1", even pharmaceutical labs and prestigious universities couldn't research it.

Believe it or not, that's not true. The University of Washington in Seattle has had a Federal license to grow and research pot since 1974. They've been farming over there for 3 decades! They're one of 8 universities in the nation that hold one of those research licenses. (it might be more now)


Quote

Congrats. to you for not succumbing to the Drug War propaganda. You are in the vanguard, leading your nation and People out of the dark ages. We are in your debt.

Honestly, most of the users I know, and it's a lot, voted against it. Can you figure out why?


This is the original ordinance for the Seattle regarding the lowest prosecution priority for pot ,http://clerk.ci.seat...ory.htm&r=1&f=G written and approved in 2003. There were several more ordinances after this one that much broadened the definition in 2004, and 2006. This is just the original. A friend of mine, just a normal private citizen and community activist help write this ordinance and push it through the city. This is decriminalization without expressly calling it that. They didn't call it decriminalization for a few reasons, mostly because it would have invited undo attention to itself in terms of the Federal Government involvement. It became a nice quiet city ordinance that other cities quietly adopted as well.  it became abundantly clear to others in the state that if we could live with these ordinances and see no spike in use or crime directly related to it, that it was just time to legalize it. Which is what we did. This state could use the tax monies, and our chief of police, govenor, and pretty much all government officials are behind the voters on this, and plan to back the voters wishes with everything they have.

So far, the silence from the federal government has been deafening. If they aren't ever going to move to stop what's happening in Washington and Colorado, that's a silent approval to move forward.

I think the Feds know marijuana doesn't even meet their own criteria of what a Schedule I Narcotic is. I think they're going to quietly let states make up their own mind, not interfere and let the next president do something about it if they feel like it. Obama is just going to look the other way and pretend it's not happening. That's definitely the feeling I have at this point.

Edited by MissMelsWell, 24 March 2013 - 11:37 PM.

"It's time for the American people to stand up and shrug off the shackles of our government at TSA at the airport"  Ron Paul

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

#29    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 25 March 2013 - 01:42 AM

View Postsear, on 23 March 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

So it might have seemed just a few short years ago.
But many Congressional Republicans are over a barrel because of their Norquist pledge.

$75 $Bil isn't chump change. That's an amount of money worth saving.

Ending the Drug War may be an economic necessity. Shame on any U.S. legislator that thinks martial oppression of U.S. citizens is a higher priority than caring for our children's health and education.

I agree but again, I don't see this happening yet in Congress.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#30    sear

sear

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Joined:04 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adirondack Park, NY

  • "A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:47 AM

Quote

  "you clearly don't know what the definition of decriminalized is." MW
You're right. I'm not an expert on definitions.
But Dictionary.com is:

Quote

  de·crim·i·nal·ize
[dee-krim-uh-nl-ahyz] Show IPA
verb (used with object), de·crim·i·nal·ized, de·crim·i·nal·iz·ing.
to eliminate criminal penalties for or remove legal restrictions against: to decriminalize marijuana.

http://dictionary.re...inalize?&path=/
Let's contrast it with "legal", or "legalize".

Quote

  le·gal
[lee-guhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. permitted by law

le·gal·ize
[lee-guh-lahyz] Show IPA
verb (used with object), le·gal·ized, le·gal·iz·ing.
to make legal; authorize.

http://dictionary.re.../legalize?s=t  
Frankly, I'm not entirely happy with either of these descriptions.
Perhaps more accurately: partially legalized, or legalized for restricted consumption.

In any case MW, I appreciate you sharing your perspective on it.
Both my parents were professional writers. I inherited their interest in precision in language.

Quote

  "Precision & clarity in the use of language leads to precision & clarity of thought."   G. Gordon Liddy  

Quote

"I don't mean to get pushy here, but ..." MW
I sincerely appreciate your candor.

Quote

"University of Washington" MW
Fine.
But I gather most applications were rejected. (I also agree, my wording wasn't clear, thanks again)

Quote

". If they aren't ever going to move to stop what's happening in Washington and Colorado" MW
I thought either Attorney General Eric Holder, or Obama, or both were on record as having said they wouldn't.

BUT:
I gather there has been at least one raid on California's "medical marijuana" infrasturcture, which I gather is immense. That may have been during the Bush administration.

BTW, I was reminded the other day, the 3 most recent U.S. presidents have all used marijuana recreationally.

Quote

"I think the Feds know marijuana doesn't even meet their own criteria of what a Schedule I Narcotic is" MW
IIRC the "Schedule 1" idea came along at around the time the feds were trying to douse the distinction between "hard drugs", & "soft drugs".
The declared mj Sched#1.
Doesn't mean it's the most pharmacologically hazardous.
It merely means it's the most controlled (or more precisely, most uncontrolled).

ninja
We'll see ...





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users