The Political Pot Thread

[nab]

I cringe every time the alcohol issue is brought up when the legalization of pot is being discussed.



The argument for legalizing pot shouldn't  rest on pointing out the dangerous of alcohol or tobacco, or skydiving for that matter, but on the merits of the drug itself and the futility of its prohibition.   

i didnt think i was actually trying to convince anyone here that pot should be legal, lol.
But at this point i'm getting my words twiste around and i'm confused on even what we are talking about.
enjoy your thread kids.
---peace.

This is the thread where legalization of pot and recent events around that subject is discussed. 

Alcohol was brought up. 

I find it distracting when people compare and contrast alcohol and pot. 

There is no arguing that alcohol abuse has a negative effect on society. 

There is also no doubt that no matter how dangerous alcohol is, it doesn't make pot any safer or more dangerous.   

[VA $l!m]

i know i said i was gone... but my mind doesnt think to well these days and its hard for me to express myself .
i thought of one more point i should make b4 i leave .
to nab-- i was talking about recreational legalization which entails a completely different approach to discussion with the general public than i beleive what you were talking about was medical.

i mean, if your talking about using soley the arguements of " the merits of the drug"  to propose legalizing for recreational use that is very contradictive imo.
by definition something taken recreationally is not 'meritous'. thats the point... recreational means-- 'i just like doing it for kicks' ,

as most pot 'promoters' will admit, at least the informed ones, the legalization of medical vs recreational is 2 completely different arguements.


i understand the point about alcohol not being a good touching point for either... and honestly i cant defend what i initially said because i feel its not coming out right now looking back, so, im just gonna have to let that go. thanks for listening.


EDIT:
i dunno, now after reading your last post i'm feeling alittle persecuted so i'm going to take this a bit further against my better judgement.

ya know, one thing i really wish got more press concerning the whole legalization for recreation thing, is comparisons to alcohol being legal.
there really isnt ANY comparison of the damage recreational  Alcohol use effects on society vs. Pot.

i think every person in America that thinks pot should be illegal should be forced to spend 24 hours in a locked room with 2 people:
a pot user with all the pot he can smoke and an alcoholic with all the booze he could drink.
/end nonsense.

ok, heres an offhand thought in the middle of the afternoon that seems to have ruffled your feathers.
the second half is ignorable and if anyone took that seriously then they need to see a shrink.
the first half is where i make a point i thought about for less than a millisecond while i wrote it.

looking back i 100% stand behind this statement as lame as it might sound to you.
thinking about it more than a milisecond i can see numerous sociological reasons it makes sense to approach NON POT supporters with this arguement.
telling my parents for example that " oh, pot is good for you" as compared to "would you rather have the stoned kid in your house or a drunk lunatic with a gun" -- just doenst work. maybe for some more liberal younger folks, and of course this goes back to my point about recreational vs medical... but anyway. im rambling now.
dont take it personal nab or whoever. not sure how i really offended anyone just speaking my mind. i never took a stab at anyones opinioins...in fact i think it was quite the opposite.
peace.

[VA $l!m]

edited my last post.

[nab]

i know i said i was gone... but my mind doesnt think to well these days and its hard for me to express myself .
i thought of one more point i should make b4 i leave .
to nab-- i was talking about recreational legalization which entails a completely different approach to discussion with the general public than i beleive what you were talking about was medical.

i mean, if your talking about using soley the arguements of " the merits of the drug"  to propose legalizing for recreational use that is very contradictive imo.
by definition something taken recreationally is not 'meritous'. thats the point... recreational means-- 'i just like doing it for kicks' ,

as most pot 'promoters' will admit, at least the informed ones, the legalization of medical vs recreational is 2 completely different arguements.


i understand the point about alcohol not being a good touching point for either... and honestly i cant defend what i initially said because i feel its not coming out right now looking back, so, im just gonna have to let that go. thanks for listening.


EDIT:
i dunno, now after reading your last post i'm feeling alittle persecuted so i'm going to take this a bit further against my better judgement.

ya know, one thing i really wish got more press concerning the whole legalization for recreation thing, is comparisons to alcohol being legal.
there really isnt ANY comparison of the damage recreational  Alcohol use effects on society vs. Pot.

i think every person in America that thinks pot should be illegal should be forced to spend 24 hours in a locked room with 2 people:
a pot user with all the pot he can smoke and an alcoholic with all the booze he could drink.
/end nonsense.

ok, heres an offhand thought in the middle of the afternoon that seems to have ruffled your feathers.
the second half is ignorable and if anyone took that seriously then they need to see a shrink.
the first half is where i make a point i thought about for less than a millisecond while i wrote it.

looking back i 100% stand behind this statement as lame as it might sound to you.
thinking about it more than a milisecond i can see numerous sociological reasons it makes sense to approach NON POT supporters with this arguement.
telling my parents for example that " oh, pot is good for you" as compared to "would you rather have the stoned kid in your house or a drunk lunatic with a gun" -- just doenst work. maybe for some more liberal younger folks, and of course this goes back to my point about recreational vs medical... but anyway. im rambling now.
dont take it personal nab or whoever. not sure how i really offended anyone just speaking my mind. i never took a stab at anyones opinioins...in fact i think it was quite the opposite.
peace.

Don't worry, I wasn't offended.  Hope you weren't; we're just discussing ideas, not personalities. 

I just think that the "Alcohol and pot do something similar, therefore  pot should be legal because alcohol is legal and alcohol is more dangerous than pot" isn't the best argument for legalizing pot, recreational or medically (since you could substitute opiates for alcohol in my analogy and arrive at the same result).     

[VA $l!m]

Don't worry, I wasn't offended.  Hope you weren't; we're just discussing ideas, not personalities. 

I just think that the "Alcohol and pot do something similar, therefore  pot should be legal because alcohol is legal and alcohol is more dangerous than pot" isn't the best argument for legalizing pot, recreational or medically (since you could substitute opiates for alcohol in my analogy and arrive at the same result).   

i'm not totally following your comment about opiate substitution in the analogy... if i plug opiates in the analogy falls apart b/c opiates arent legal persay.... its probably my poor reading comprehension though.



anyway, besides the analogies and to your point:

I never said comparisons to alcohol were the 'best' or only argument for legalization.
though i do believe it should be at the center of the public discussion.


When recreational legalization is more truthfully about  repealing laws, not making them, then i feel that using the other most debated and legislated drug in our Country's history is indeed a place we should go with the discussion when attempting to repeal misappropriated laws concerning pot.

With Prohibition, the Country came to an understanding concerning  morals regulating vice.
The entire fact that Pot is even illegal is based off of prejudices and manipulation of the government by economic forces.
so, in my mind the debate should be focused on revealing the invalidity of the initial criminalization,,, which is pretty much how prohibition was eventually repealed.

[nab]

Don't worry, I wasn't offended.  Hope you weren't; we're just discussing ideas, not personalities. 

I just think that the "Alcohol and pot do something similar, therefore  pot should be legal because alcohol is legal and alcohol is more dangerous than pot" isn't the best argument for legalizing pot, recreational or medically (since you could substitute opiates for alcohol in my analogy and arrive at the same result).   

i'm not totally following your comment about opiate substitution in the analogy... if i plug opiates in the analogy falls apart b/c opiates arent legal persay.... its probably my poor reading comprehension though.

Then try it like this "X and Y do similar things.  X is legal, Y is illegal.  X can be more dangerous than Y.  Therefore, Y should be legal."

This is how I perceive arguments that use alcohol use in arguing for the end of marijuana prohibition.  This is not a proponent position for Y, but rather a opposition argument against X.

Or to put it back into what we were talking about, that alcohol is dangerous and legal is not an argument for legalizing pot (for any reason), it is an argument for making alcohol illegal. 

Arguments for legalizing marijuana should rest on the rational reasons to end prohibition against marijuana. 


Or to put my line of thinking another way, and using a completely different subject:

Civil rights don't exist because of oppression in the past and present, civil rights exist because treating people equally under the law is rational (and good, imo).   

[VDB]

Don't worry, I wasn't offended.  Hope you weren't; we're just discussing ideas, not personalities. 

I just think that the "Alcohol and pot do something similar, therefore  pot should be legal because alcohol is legal and alcohol is more dangerous than pot" isn't the best argument for legalizing pot, recreational or medically (since you could substitute opiates for alcohol in my analogy and arrive at the same result).   

i'm not totally following your comment about opiate substitution in the analogy... if i plug opiates in the analogy falls apart b/c opiates arent legal persay.... its probably my poor reading comprehension though.

Then try it like this "X and Y do similar things.  X is legal, Y is illegal.  X can be more dangerous than Y.  Therefore, Y should be legal."

This is how I perceive arguments that use alcohol use in arguing for the end of marijuana prohibition.  This is not a proponent position for Y, but rather a opposition argument against X.

Or to put it back into what we were talking about, that alcohol is dangerous and legal is not an argument for legalizing pot (for any reason), it is an argument for making alcohol illegal. 

Arguments for legalizing marijuana should rest on the rational reasons to end prohibition against marijuana. 


Or to put my line of thinking another way, and using a completely different subject:

Civil rights don't exist because of oppression in the past and present, civil rights exist because treating people equally under the law is rational (and good, imo).   

Interesting. Per strict logic, it makes sense. But in practice, I wonder if the argument still has merit due to the fact that alcohol is in no actual danger of being made illegal by this or other arguments, and so if you can get people to acknowledge how pot and booze compare, you might be able to force them to acknowledge it's only fair and sensible that pot be legal too.

And Slim, give yourself some credit. Your points are compelling, well made, and not offending anyone here as far as I can tell.

[ytowndan]

Good news: Harborside wins big in federal gov't abusive attempt to force landlords to evict dispensaries.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/03/harborside-health-center-_n_2234545.html

Bad news: the administration is preparing response to CO and WA legalization initiatives. And it ain't good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/marijuana-initiatives-in-2-states-set-federal-officials-scrambling.html?_r=0

Administration Weighs Legal Action Against States That Legalized Marijuana Use

...

One option is for federal prosecutors to bring some cases against low-level marijuana users of the sort they until now have rarely bothered with, waiting for a defendant to make a motion to dismiss the case because the drug is now legal in that state. The department could then obtain a court ruling that federal law trumps the state one.

A more aggressive option is for the Justice Department to file lawsuits against the states to prevent them from setting up systems to regulate and tax marijuana, as the initiatives contemplated. If a court agrees that such regulations are pre-empted by federal ones, it will open the door to a broader ruling about whether the regulatory provisions can be "severed" from those eliminating state prohibitions — or whether the entire initiatives must be struck down.

Another potential avenue would be to cut off federal grants to the states unless their legislatures restored antimarijuana laws, said Gregory Katsas, who led the civil division of the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.

Similar to how the feds effectively implemented a national drinking age. (Which I think is a bullshit and seemingly limitless way of skirting the 10th Amendment, by the way.) Maybe the fact that legalization here resulted from popular initiatives will make the feds pause a little, or at least cast any action of theirs in a negative PR light. Either way, I think we should welcome the challenge, perhaps it will force the kind of national change that I think is inevitable here.

I'll welcome the challenge once Scalia retires and we get one more liberal on the court.

I was thinking about that today.  I was wondering if he'd retire within the next 4 years, or if he'd hold out in hopes of a Republican victory in 2016. 

[emay]

Don't worry, I wasn't offended.  Hope you weren't; we're just discussing ideas, not personalities. 

I just think that the "Alcohol and pot do something similar, therefore  pot should be legal because alcohol is legal and alcohol is more dangerous than pot" isn't the best argument for legalizing pot, recreational or medically (since you could substitute opiates for alcohol in my analogy and arrive at the same result).   

i'm not totally following your comment about opiate substitution in the analogy... if i plug opiates in the analogy falls apart b/c opiates arent legal persay.... its probably my poor reading comprehension though.

Then try it like this "X and Y do similar things.  X is legal, Y is illegal.  X can be more dangerous than Y.  Therefore, Y should be legal."

This is how I perceive arguments that use alcohol use in arguing for the end of marijuana prohibition.  This is not a proponent position for Y, but rather a opposition argument against X.

Or to put it back into what we were talking about, that alcohol is dangerous and legal is not an argument for legalizing pot (for any reason), it is an argument for making alcohol illegal. 

Arguments for legalizing marijuana should rest on the rational reasons to end prohibition against marijuana. 


Or to put my line of thinking another way, and using a completely different subject:

Civil rights don't exist because of oppression in the past and present, civil rights exist because treating people equally under the law is rational (and good, imo).   

Interesting. Per strict logic, it makes sense. But in practice, I wonder if the argument still has merit due to the fact that alcohol is in no actual danger of being made illegal by this or other arguments, and so if you can get people to acknowledge how pot and booze compare, you might be able to force them to acknowledge it's only fair and sensible that pot be legal too.

And Slim, give yourself some credit. Your points are compelling, well made, and not offending anyone here as far as I can tell.

I think one of the main things about arguing that alcohol is legal, why shouldnt pot be, isnt because of the effects on a person, both can be seen as negative esp when abused. Pot maybe not so much, more just lack of motivation after a while.

But because of where pot is right now in time, it is like the prohibition was with alchohol in the 1920's. A lot of it is run by cartels or some people that are in hiding growing mass quantities of pot to strictly make money off it and to not really care where its going or whats happening with it. Its all black market and all very impersonal/cutthroat business, esp to many of the pot smokers that are simply just smoking recreationally and are not buying weed to make money off of. If it was legalized and people were able to grow/buy/sell/smoke local quality herb, there would be a lot less people gettin arrested, and a lot less shadiness behind all the pot being sold around the US. Also, I see a lot of money and people that make a lot of money off pot use it to buy other harder drugs that are strictly imported by cartels, funding another, sketchier kind of black market.
.

[nab]

Don't worry, I wasn't offended.  Hope you weren't; we're just discussing ideas, not personalities. 

I just think that the "Alcohol and pot do something similar, therefore  pot should be legal because alcohol is legal and alcohol is more dangerous than pot" isn't the best argument for legalizing pot, recreational or medically (since you could substitute opiates for alcohol in my analogy and arrive at the same result).   

i'm not totally following your comment about opiate substitution in the analogy... if i plug opiates in the analogy falls apart b/c opiates arent legal persay.... its probably my poor reading comprehension though.

Then try it like this "X and Y do similar things.  X is legal, Y is illegal.  X can be more dangerous than Y.  Therefore, Y should be legal."

This is how I perceive arguments that use alcohol use in arguing for the end of marijuana prohibition.  This is not a proponent position for Y, but rather a opposition argument against X.

Or to put it back into what we were talking about, that alcohol is dangerous and legal is not an argument for legalizing pot (for any reason), it is an argument for making alcohol illegal. 

Arguments for legalizing marijuana should rest on the rational reasons to end prohibition against marijuana. 


Or to put my line of thinking another way, and using a completely different subject:

Civil rights don't exist because of oppression in the past and present, civil rights exist because treating people equally under the law is rational (and good, imo).   

Interesting. Per strict logic, it makes sense. But in practice, I wonder if the argument still has merit due to the fact that alcohol is in no actual danger of being made illegal by this or other arguments, and so if you can get people to acknowledge how pot and booze compare, you might be able to force them to acknowledge it's only fair and sensible that pot be legal too.

And Slim, give yourself some credit. Your points are compelling, well made, and not offending anyone here as far as I can tell.

The point still makes sense, logically, given that the safety of pot vs. alcohol isn't an argument for the prohibition of alcohol either.  Alcohol and pot are still apples and oranges, legally.  If you want to sell oranges, you have to invent a screwdriver, not a citrus appletini.             

[VDB]

The point still makes sense, logically, given that the safety of pot vs. alcohol isn't an argument for the prohibition of alcohol either.

Wait, isn't that the opposite of what you said earlier?

Or to put it back into what we were talking about, that alcohol is dangerous and legal is not an argument for legalizing pot (for any reason), it is an argument for making alcohol illegal.

[nab]

The point still makes sense, logically, given that the safety of pot vs. alcohol isn't an argument for the prohibition of alcohol either.

Wait, isn't that the opposite of what you said earlier?

Or to put it back into what we were talking about, that alcohol is dangerous and legal is not an argument for legalizing pot (for any reason), it is an argument for making alcohol illegal.

Superficially, I guess.


But statements still support the argument I've been trying to make; That there are reasons to end marijuana prohibition that are independent of the danger of alcohol.     

[VDB]

there are reasons to end marijuana prohibition that are independent of the danger of alcohol.   

Absolutely agreed.

[Undermind]

[emay]

gettin real jealous of you washingtonians


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/10/15820613-like-amsterdam-washington-bar-owner-lets-patrons-get-stoned?lite