Can I buy some pot from you ? by AURaptor

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

It's going to be interesting to see how this all shakes out, both in Washington and in Colorado. In Washington, they're talking about having their liquor control board (we call it TABC in Texas; not sure what their version is called) oversee setting up, licensing, and enforcement of distribution and sales, but I heard one official saying that if any of the state government officials are caught planning any such operations, they could be arrested on federal racketeering charges for conspiring to engage in a criminal enterprise.

So... yeah. It could get real interesting...

I never thought I'd see it happen in my lifetime, and I'm glad at least two states are willing to take a chance on this. Give it a chance, see what happens, and we can move on from there.

That said, legalize pot tomorrow in Texas, and I'm not likely to toke up. I've been around it long enough, and I've tried it, but I've just never cared for the high. But I would certainly support legalization.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2012 6:35 AM

America loves a winner!

So, state's rights is a good thing, when it's pot,but we need federal control, at other times.

Got it.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2012 6:45 AM

REAVERFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

So, state's rights is a good thing, when it's pot,but we need federal control, at other times.

Got it.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

This sort of thing was done just before the end of our other unsuccessful attempt at prohibition. It's still illegal at the fed level, but things like this will force them to reconsider. I imagine it will be legal everywhere, eventually.
If you're talking about gay marriage, it needs to be standardized nationally. You can't have your marriage count in one state but not another.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2012 7:08 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by REAVERFAN:

If you're talking about gay marriage, it needs to be standardized nationally. You can't have your marriage count in one state but not another.

Why?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2012 7:42 AM

REAVERFAN

The obvious reason is that marriage gives people lots of legal statuses. If a straight couple were to marry in one state, then move to another, only to be told they weren't considered married there, and could never be, it would affect them in lots of ways. It's no different for gay couples.

As for weed, there really are people who use it for medical reasons. To deny it it to them because they move to a different state could hurt them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2012 7:44 AM

America loves a winner!

And the merry-go-round continues...

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2012 7:45 AM

REAVERFAN

Wheeeeee! LOL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2012 12:37 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Rappy, I'm not sure what your point is unless you really want to find reasons to ban gays from marrying.

The Supreme Court has already found it has jurisdiction in state marriage laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage:

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

... In their defense, Mrs. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom; rather than defending them, it became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge, because it proved they had been married in another state.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 9, 2012 12:52 PM

Okay, so Rappy is now AGAINST states' rights?

It's funny, because when it comes to guns, I'm always told by conservatives that NO state can have any kind of gun control laws. So in those instances, the right is firmly AGAINST states' rights. When it comes to abortion, though, they're firmly FOR states' rights. Elections? For states' rights, against federal standards for all.

So Rappy, are you for or against states' rights?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 1:10 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Rappy, I'm not sure what your point is unless you really want to find reasons to ban gays from marrying.

The thread is about the legalization of pot.

Comments?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 4:28 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Rappy, I'm not sure what your point is unless you really want to find reasons to ban gays from marrying.

The thread is about the legalization of pot.

Comments?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Hello,

You are in error. You established this thread to be about state's rights, not pot specifically, when you expounded:

Quote:

So, state's rights is a good thing, when it's pot,but we need federal control, at other times.

Got it.

Thus setting the tone and direction of conversation in your own thread.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 5:05 AM

America loves a winner!

No Anthony, the thread was and is about pot. Says so,right there in the subject title.

I didn't bring up the gay marriage issue. I didn't even comment on it here. I simply asked ' why ' ? Which itself was open ended as to the meaning.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 5:05 AM

JONGSSTRAW

The Federal Govt. should have legalized and taxed pot decades ago. If they had there would not be a $16 Trillion national debt today. There also wouldn't be murderous drug gangs creating mayhem in Mexico that sends millions of its citizens into America each year.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic."

Benjamin Franklin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 5:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No Anthony, the thread was and is about pot. Says so,right there in the subject title.

I didn't bring up the gay marriage issue. I didn't even comment on it here. I simply asked ' why ' ? Which itself was open ended as to the meaning.

Weren't you the one who brought up states' rights as an issue in this thread?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 5:30 AM

America loves a winner!

To reaffirm that it's a good thing, where the issue is regarding pot, yes.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 5:31 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No Anthony, the thread was and is about pot. Says so,right there in the subject title.

I didn't bring up the gay marriage issue. I didn't even comment on it here. I simply asked ' why ' ? Which itself was open ended as to the meaning.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Hello,

I guess you forgot that you brought up the topic of state rights.

Incidentally, as you well know, the Federal government has a duty to interfere when the civil rights and liberties of the individual are trampled upon by the state.

As is the case with interracial marriage and other forms of marriage unpopular with bigots.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 5:32 AM

America loves a winner!

So pot, you're down with it or not ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 5:37 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

So pot, you're down with it or not ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Hello,

Consenting Adults should have the right to dispose of their own bodies however they choose, including the consumption of any 'prohibited substance.'

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 6:08 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

The "war on drugs" has been an expensive joke, and everyone knows it. This step will be the first to encourage other states to follow. In my opinion that's a good thing, for a number of reasons.

Quote:
With law enforcement focused on stopping violent crime rather than arresting marijuana users, police and other public servants will see a host of new opportunities opened up to them according to (Neill Franklin, the Executive Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)), including better community relations.

“There will be far fewer reasons for racial profiling and unjustified searches of one’s person, places and affects,” he notes, adding that we’ll also see “less money for criminal gangs and less involvement in the violent drug trade. This is another public safety win. This will be one heavy blow to the cartel in these two states.”

There’s a lot of money flowing into the War on Drugs each year, and a lot more money spent making sure it’s never won.

Harvard economics professor and author of Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition, Jeffrey Miron, tells me that the budgetary impact is relatively negligible, clocking in somewhere between $15-20 billion per year, but the impact on liberty is impossible to ignore.

Still, all that money can create incentives to keep the machine humming. Many peoples’ livelihoods are directly impacted by the number of prison beds filled or the number of arrests made.

Even so, ending the War on Drugs would be a net gain, even to the people working in law enforcement LEAP’s Franklin tells me.

“There will be some benefactors who lose out,” he says, “but law enforcement is not one. Law enforcement will benefit. No cops or prison guards will be laid off. There is plenty of neglected police work to be done. The streets and prisons will become safer. Crowded prisons are dangerous prisons and they breed a more savvy and dangerous criminal who will eventually return to the streets. Will there be less overtime? Possibly. Will there be less property and funds seized? I certainly hope so. But this is all good stuff for the people and the community. Tensions between police and citizens should relax some, making way for improved relationships.”

So who are the real losers?

Franklin sees some private companies taking a hit, including “private prison corporations, Dupont (textiles), the alcohol industry, big pharma, etc.”

He adds, “I could care less and so will most citizens. The benefits for police and community greatly out weigh any costs. The industrial hemp industry alone, which we currently import from the likes of Canada, will be enormous for our economic growth.”
.....
“In a free society, the presumption must be that people can smoke, snort, eat or inject whatever they wish, so long as they do not harm others,” (Harvard economics professor and author of Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition, Jeffrey Miron) argues. “The burden of proof should rest on those who would ban marijuana, not those who want it legal. That burden has never been met.”More at http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/11/07/what-tuesdays-marijuan
a-victories-mean-for-the-war-on-drugs/

He obviously feels the same as you do, Anthony.

Actually, I disagree with that to an extent. When you're talking harder drugs, the harm they do can impact us all, in paying for their health costs, and it won't stop crime by heroin addicts, etc., whose actions DO impact others. It's a conundrum, but marijuana use by itself harms few if any, and it's way past time it should be, at the very LEAST, taken off Schedule One controlled substances. That has always been absurd.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 6:29 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
When you're talking harder drugs, the harm they do can impact us all, in paying for their health costs

Hello,

I'm not sure this is the case, since it seems reasonable that hard drug users who use habitually will often opt-out of life much earlier and more abruptly than other people. Over the course of a lifetime, they may actually cost less than the alternative citizen who has a lifetime of various ordinary maladies followed by a decline of months or years in their winter ages, perhaps with a long hospital or hospice stay.

Even were this not the case, I'd no sooner outlaw hard drugs than I'd outlaw sunshine. Both can create tremendous health care costs when abused. I accept the paying of these costs as the price of freedom. These are the true costs of freedom, not the decaliters of blood shed on foreign lands.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 6:42 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

The "war on drugs" has been an expensive joke, and everyone knows it. This step will be the first to encourage other states to follow. In my opinion that's a good thing, for a number of reasons.

Agreed.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 12:17 PM

Quote:
Posted by Niki:

Actually, I disagree with that to an extent. When you're talking harder drugs, the harm they do can impact us all, in paying for their health costs, and it won't stop crime by heroin addicts, etc., whose actions DO impact others. It's a conundrum, but marijuana use by itself harms few if any, and it's way past time it should be, at the very LEAST, taken off Schedule One controlled substances. That has always been absurd.

Good point. As to the harder drugs and the impact on crime they may or may not have, I might point out that mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients is also not going to stop crime by those (very, very) few who are hardcore addicts. Taking away their welfare dollars won't help, but it WILL spike the crime rates, because like it or not, hardcore addicts won't just up and quit if the money is cut off, and they won't just conveniently lay down and die, either; they have a tendency to want to survive, same as most, and will do whatever it takes to keep going.

Portugal, I believe, decriminalized drugs, cleared out their prisons and courts, got the police back to real police work on real crimes with real victims, and also brought in robust drug education and rehabilitation programs. Drug use, even of the most addictive, most destructive drugs, far from skyrocketing, has actually decreased, if I'm not mistaken.

It doesn't take a miracle; just a systemic approach to the problem.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

The "war on drugs" has been an expensive joke, and everyone knows it. This step will be the first to encourage other states to follow. In my opinion that's a good thing, for a number of reasons.

Agreed.

Thirded. A rare moment of agreement from nearly all sides, it would seem.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2012 12:48 PM