In response to:

I Am Not Stoned: Sobering Realities For Taxpayers On The Road To Legalizing Marijuana

fworley681 Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 10:00 AM
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Remember that? Legalize all drugs, end the federal war, tax it and get all non-violent drug offenders out of prison. Great way to cut our spending and reduce violent crime by taking the money away from the drug gangs.
Illbay Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 10:50 AM
And thereby causing mass carnage on the highways and in our homes.

But you dont' care about that. Pass the doobie from the left-hand side, right?
Beethovens10th Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 10:39 AM
Silly liberaltarian. "Regulating" and "taxing" it will take AT LEAST as much administrative, law enforcement, legislative and prosecutorial, and, yes, incarceration efforts as fighting drugs; I say exponentially more. The tax-payers thank you - NOT.

But you fail to recognize that you are violating your own sacred "theology" by getting the government even MORE involved in the process. Why is it that liberaltarians don't just advocate for a complete hands-off approach to drugs? Or are you unconsciously recognizing that is really is such a hazard to society that it MUST be harnessed in some way?
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 10:45 AM
Actually, THIS libertarian (and most all libertarians) agree that all drugs should be legal (and that, under the 9th and 10th amendments, already ARE legal).

Certainly, the federal government has absolutely NO LEGAL POWER to outlaw drugs, per the 10th Amendment. Now, arguably, state and local governments DO have such powers, and under the Founder's principle of federalism, there should exist 50 different systems of regulating or not regulating drugs.

You see, the difference between "liberaltarians" (as you call them) and "conservatives" is the fact that "liberaltarians" believe that, if we are to have a Constitution, we should at least adhere to it strictly.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 11:01 AM
I'm not arguing for the "right" of the federal government to get involved, Paulus, and I'm in complete agreement with you about that.

But don't be so ingenuous as to pretend to support the local governments' rights to do so. Every liberaltarian - yes, that is a much more apt title - that I know wants NO regulation on intoxicants, state or local. In fact, the few that I know are even AGAINST drunk driving laws; appealing to their own supreme doctrine of "externality."
Beethovens10th Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 11:02 AM
That's disingenuous, sorry.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 11:19 AM
As a constitutionalist, I agree that state and local governments have the power, theoretically, to outlaw plant extracts. I think it's a terrible idea, but I agree they have that power.

The fact of the matter is, all the so-called patent medicines (including cocaine and heroin, as well as hemp) were perfectly legal well into the 20th century. The social consequences were far LESS, as one would expect. No one got into shoot-outs over cocaine territory when you could get the stuff from a can of Coca-Cola. Just as no one gets into shootouts over alcohol territory today, as they did during Prohibition.
arpiem Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 10:21 AM
When you've seen a good person coming home from work on a motorcycle, peeled off the grill of a Toyota, driven by a guy who was stoned on pot, you'd think twice about legalizing this stuff. Oh, wow, man. . .
William... Carpinteria CA Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 10:34 AM
Why are you picking on motorcycles, Toyota and pot... why not pedestrians, Ford, and booze?
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 10:36 AM
Two points in response to Arpiem:

1) The exact same argument applies to alcohol (only more so, as we shall see in point 2). Are you willing to argue that, "once you've seen someone run over by a drunk driver, you'll want to make alcoholic drinks illegal, just like marijuana"?

2) Marijuana intoxication is vastly different from alcohol intoxication. Ask any police officer; the way they spot "stoned" drivers is the way they drive in the right hand lane, 10 mph BELOW the speed limit. Alcohol users tend to become overly confident and aggressive when they drive; marijuana users tend to be, if anything, more cautious, because they are AWARE of their mental state.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 10:39 AM
This is NOT to say, by the way, that driving under the influence of EITHER alcohol or pot should be legal. I simply point out that, between the two forms of inebriation, pot smokers tend to be far less aggressive and dangerous than alcohol users.

Drunk driving fatalities are an everyday occurrence. Pot-induced accidents also happen, but much less frequently, for the reasons discussed.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 10:50 AM
You're delusion, PT. I don't know where you are getting your information.

As a former police officer, I'll tell you that alcohol AND marijuana are both central nervous system sedatives, they BOTH affect the user similarly. No, most alcohol-drunk drivers are NOT more aggressive; one of the hallmark signs of the drunk at the wheel is driving significantly below the speed limit.

And pot is frequently used to lower the inhibitions of criminals. Many burglars will smoke a joint before breaking into a house to "calm their nerves," and any conscience that may remain.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 11:06 AM
Beethoven's, you may be a former police officer, but you may lack knowledge of pharmacopeia.

Alcohol and Cannabis are indeed both central nervous system depressants, but that is about as relevant as saying that aspirin and heroin are both pain relievers. Alcohol users frequently (though not always) become loud, belligerent, and overly aggressive. Marijuana users become mellow and dopey.

Sure, many burglars smoke joints to calm their nerves. Does marijuana then CAUSE the crime of burglary? What about the burglar who calms his nerves by smoking a cigarette? Should tobacco therefore be illegal?
Beethovens10th Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 11:12 AM
I know, by experience, the real-world effects of drugs, including alcohol - excuse me if I don't have the academic background to give me more "authority."

Both lower inhibitions, THAT is why drunks and dope heads become loud and belligerent. Without this destroyer of their own common sense and SELF-CONTROL, they would be much less likely to engage in fighting, belligerence, burglary and other crimes against others.
Science Avenger Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 12:20 PM
Beethoven, you are talking out of your nether regions. Marijuana is a mild hallucinagen, and there is nothing whatsoever in the medical literature that attributes loud belligerent behavior to its use.

Pot fans got what they wanted in Colorado: they finally convinced voters there to support the legalization of “recreational marijuana.” It’s seen as a huge victory for those who support the powers of the individual states, and a great example of “federalism” in action. But who is considering the burden of all of this on the American taxpayer?

Before I go further, let me be clear: I have never in my entire life consumed marijuana. When I was a kid I was out of step with my peers on this, but I’ve just never been interested in “trying it,” and that’s...