Trump administration rescinds policy of leniency towards cannabis legalization.

[Father Heathen]

You guys are perfectly happy restricting freedoms of expression or speech for anything that triggers you,

"You guys"? Tell me, what sort of censorship do you think I support? Also the term "trigger" refers to PTSD, not anger. You're not a 12 year old kid and this isn't 4chan.

but you're all bent out when someone doesn't like THC because it "limits your freedom". Nah, it doesn't limit your freedom at all - you can have a nice happy life without ever having access to it, or needing it. This is like saying my right to bear arms is limited because I can't have an F-18 Hornet parked in my driveway. It's not necessary to have THC or the F-18 to enjoy your life... Medical uses notwithstanding...

So you're a fan of a nanny state. Gotcha. You really wouldn't mind the government dictating to you what you can and cannot have as long as you don't "need" it? So if the law decided to ban your smokes, your beer, your soda, your fast food, your candy, etc. because some politician decided that they were too unhealthy and that you were too dumb to make your own choices, you would be cool with it? What if the government decided to ban "subversive" music - let's say it's your favorite genre and artists - because of what they consider its negative, corrupting influence? You don't "need" to listen to it after all.

There is no "right to dope" in the constitution, so the point is relatively moot. Personally, I am an anarcho-capitalist and have no interest in the government minding over anything but product safety in this realm, because I don't need another daddy... But, I realize that half the population falls under the median for base intelligence and cannot be left to fend for themselves.

Your views are a wacky stew of cognitive dissonance, all watery with an oily film on the surface.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've read somewhere that smoking weed is more dangerous than cigs as far as cancer is concerned. I don't know...

But since I'm not into it, I rather not take any chances.

Actually no. It appears to raise the risk somewhat, this study says twice that of non-smokers:

Marijuana use and risk of lung cancer: a 40-year cohort study. - PubMed - NCBI

But the rate among non-smokers is rather low so a two times increase may be statistical error. They are not saying that there is a definite relationship. I have seen others studies as well that support the claim it is less dangerous. And I do not smoke or use marijuana. Tried it in my college days and did not like it. I felt "slow" for a few days afterwards. But just because it is not for me I will not say that others cannot use it.

 

[PureX]

I've read somewhere that smoking weed is more dangerous than cigs as far as cancer is concerned. I don't know...

But since I'm not into it, I rather not take any chances.

It's the way it's smoked that poses the greater threat. Most cigarettes are filtered, and some heavily so. Most pot is smoked unfiltered.

On the other hand, tobacco is generally smoked far more frequently than pot. So ...

 

[Mindmaster]

"You guys"? Tell me, what sort of censorship do you think I support? Also the term "trigger" refers to PTSD, not anger. You're not a 12 year old kid and this isn't 4chan.

Tu quo qu & sharp shooting, has nothing to do with the post. I don't really care to respond...

So you're a fan of a nanny state. Gotcha. You really wouldn't mind the government dictating to you what you can and cannot have as long as you don't "need" it? So if the law decided to ban your smokes, your beer, your soda, your fast food, your candy, etc. because some politician decided that they were too unhealthy and that you were too dumb to make your own choices, you would be cool with it? What if the government decided to ban "subversive" music - let's say it's your favorite genre and artists - because of what they consider its negative, corrupting influence? You don't "need" to listen to it after all.

Your views are a wacky stew of cognitive dissonance, all watery with an oily film on the surface.

Strawman, appeal to emotion, ad hominem, composition/division, black-or-white comparisons, genetic arguments, etc. You can't make logic out of being illogical. The Constitution directly protects anything such as art-type expression, of course, I presume you know that so you can add a "slippery slope" argument a well. Just because we keep drugs illegal doesn't lead to all of the other things you mention in that post or necessarily set a pattern for those other occurrences. The government often is called to act in situations where public safety must be assured, because no one else has the power to get that job done alone. What is "safe" is always a moving target, and we learn more every day... And yeah, certain foods certainly have barely any right to be called as such. I'm not interested in discussing more because it's off-topic, but feel free to make that another post.

P.S. - You don't believe anyone is too dumb to make their own decisions? I beg to differ... We need some baselines or those people get hurt needlessly. And there is hardly any intellectual superiority being displayed by letting them suffer for some silly argument of liberty. Cruelty is never admirable...

 

[Curious George]

P.S. - You don't believe anyone is too dumb to make their own decisions? I beg to differ... We need some baselines or those people get hurt needlessly. And there is hardly any intellectual superiority being displayed by letting them suffer for some silly argument of liberty. Cruelty is never admirable...

Well I do believe that some people are too "dumb" (though I wouldn't choose that word) to make their own decisions. However, that isn't exactly what the issue at hand is. Nor is it about suffering. According to the law it is about commerce. You see public safety and welfare have historically been handled by the states. This is a simple separation of powers issue. Just as gun laws are.

So the question is not are drugs bad or good but should the federal government involve itself. Now we know that the federal government can involve itself based on commerce. But that does not mean it should. I do not think it is a silly argument of liberty. It is an important question regarding the federal vs state involvement. Now many will polarize anyone as being pro-nanny state when they support federal intervention in some aspect that they oppose. I do not think it is helpful, nor is polarizing language referring to "triggering."

I disagree with federal involvement in drug laws that are not directly related to transporting drugs between states or internationally. Do you? If not, why?

Consequently, I disagree with the current choice to take any steps toward the prosecution of people by the federal government for the possession of drugs alone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tu quo qu & sharp shooting, has nothing to do with the post. I don't really care to respond...



Strawman, appeal to emotion, ad hominem, composition/division, black-or-white comparisons, genetic arguments, etc. You can't make logic out of being illogical. The Constitution directly protects anything such as art-type expression, of course, I presume you know that so you can add a "slippery slope" argument a well. Just because we keep drugs illegal doesn't lead to all of the other things you mention in that post or necessarily set a pattern for those other occurrences. The government often is called to act in situations where public safety must be assured, because no one else has the power to get that job done alone. What is "safe" is always a moving target, and we learn more every day... And yeah, certain foods certainly have barely any right to be called as such. I'm not interested in discussing more because it's off-topic, but feel free to make that another post.

P.S. - You don't believe anyone is too dumb to make their own decisions? I beg to differ... We need some baselines or those people get hurt needlessly. And there is hardly any intellectual superiority being displayed by letting them suffer for some silly argument of liberty. Cruelty is never admirable...

Part of the problem is that you implied earlier that people here thought that there was a right to smoking marijuana. I don't think anyone has made that case. Personally I don't like it, but I am not letting my personal feelings on it affect on whether I will try to stop others from using marijuana. In my state I voted for legalization when it came up years ago. The harm from keeping it illegal is greater than the harm of people using it. The one complaint I have in my state is that they tried to make it a revenue generator too soon. Illegal pot is still here because it is actually cheaper than legal pot.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sessions ending federal policy that let legal pot flourish

So much for Republicans claiming to be pro states' rights, pro business, and pro freedom (but we already knew that last one was B.S.)

I heard.
This is bad news.
But there is hope that the prior policy won't be extensively undone.

 

[RedDragon94]

Sessions ending federal policy that let legal pot flourish

So much for Republicans claiming to be pro states' rights, pro business, and pro freedom (but we already knew that last one was B.S.)

Figures.

 

[Curious George]

I heard.
This is bad news.
But there is hope that the prior policy won't be extensively undone.

Or it is a ploy to rally his base. Sessions says pot is bad, Trump comes back with we aren't going to worry about that. Nothing actually changes but Trump capitalizes on the sentiment.

Much of the anti-establishment base with which trump ran had libertarian tendencies to some degree or another. It wouldn't make sense to go after pot.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or it is a ploy to rally his base. Sessions says pot is bad, Trump comes back with we aren't going to worry about that. Nothing actually changes but Trump capitalizes on the sentiment.

Much of the anti-establishment base with which trump ran had libertarian tendencies to some degree or another. It wouldn't make sense to go after pot.

I've heard that a majority of Pubs favor legalization.
It would harm him politically to go against them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I heard.
This is bad news.
But there is hope that the prior policy won't be extensively undone.

I was surprised by the map on how many states have legalized marijuana to some extent or other. At this point it looks like it is far too late for the government to start to crack down on use of marijuana. At best they can try to regulate its use.

 

[Stanyon]

Whereas guns are harmless????

You could make another thread about guns you know, what relevance that completely different discussion has to do with this thread I can only guess at.

Logic and evidence has never factored into the right's moral crusade.

Here is some data from Norml (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) on how the 114th Congress ranks by political affiliation and remarks made about marijuana, apparently over a third of republicans in congress are favourable to marijuana.
Source:Executive Summary - NORML.org - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws
KEY FINDINGS:
"Below are the key findings from NORML’s updated Congressional Scorecard. Among the 535 members of the 114th Congress:

• 330 members (62%) received a passing grade of ‘C’ or higher (270 Representatives and 60 Senators)
• Of these, 22 members (4%) received a grade of ‘A’ (20 Representatives and 2 Senators)
• 254 members (47%) received a ‘B’ grade (218 Representatives and 36 Senators)
• 54 members (10%) received a ‘C’ grade (32 Representatives and 22 Senators)
• 172 members (32%) received a ‘D’ grade (149 Representatives and 23 Senators)
• 32 members (6%) received a failing grade (16 Representatives and 16 Senators)
• 60 Senators (60%) received a passing grade of a C or higher (Two A’s, 36 B’s, and 22 C’s)
• 270 Representatives (62%) received a passing grade of a C or higher (20 A’s, 218 B’s, and 32 C’s)
• Of the 233 Democrats in Congress, 215 (92%) received a passing grade of a ‘C’ or higher
• Of the 302 Republicans in Congress, 113 members (37%) received a passing grade of ‘C’ or higher"

 

[sun rise]

Part of the problem is that you implied earlier that people here thought that there was a right to smoking marijuana. I don't think anyone has made that case. Personally I don't like it, but I am not letting my personal feelings on it affect on whether I will try to stop others from using marijuana. In my state I voted for legalization when it came up years ago. The harm from keeping it illegal is greater than the harm of people using it. The one complaint I have in my state is that they tried to make it a revenue generator too soon. Illegal pot is still here because it is actually cheaper than legal pot.

I personally don't like it either.

But the best argument I know of is that the "war on drugs" is an abject failure outside of giving a few people criminal records. When I was using drugs in the 1960's the fact that I was breaking the law had no effect on my outside of making me paranoid. It sure did not stop my use. I stopped because drugs were taking over my life and I had the strong feeling that it was time to give up drugs and get on with my life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I personally don't like it either.

But the best argument I know of is that the "war on drugs" is an abject failure outside of giving a few people criminal records. When I was using drugs in the 1960's the fact that I was breaking the law had no effect on my outside of making me paranoid. It sure did not stop my use. I stopped because drugs were taking over my life and I had the strong feeling that it was time to give up drugs and get on with my life.

It was only slightly more effective than "just say no". A better solution would be honest education. In both the pluses and minuses of drug use. The only thing I remember from my drug education classes aeons ago was a movie with some psychedelic images saying "This is the drug user's world". At the time I thought that it looked pretty cool. If they told students how drugs actually make them feel and the drawbacks and how addictive some drugs are it would go a lot further than biased propaganda. Students can see right through that. Of course if that was what they did then they would see that there is very little harm to marijuana, I think part of the problem with education may be that when they lose credibility with regards to marijuana they lose credibility when it comes to harder drugs.

 

[sun rise]

It was only slightly more effective than "just say no". A better solution would be honest education. In both the pluses and minuses of drug use. The only thing I remember from my drug education classes aeons ago was a movie with some psychedelic images saying "This is the drug user's world". At the time I thought that it looked pretty cool. If they told students how drugs actually make them feel and the drawbacks and how addictive some drugs are it would go a lot further than biased propaganda. Students can see right through that. Of course if that was what they did then they would see that there is very little harm to marijuana, I think part of the problem with education may be that when they lose credibility with regards to marijuana they lose credibility when it comes to harder drugs.

I agree. Honesty and not scare tactics is the most important starting point.

 

[Altfish]

You could make another thread about guns you know, what relevance that completely different discussion has to do with this thread I can only guess at.

Did you read the VP's quote that I was replying to? I suspect not or you would have realised the relevance of my comment.
I'll repeat it for you...."...has blamed it (i.e. Cannabis) for spikes in violence"
So why doesn't his thought process work the same way when it comes to guns?

 

[Stanyon]

Did you read the VP's quote that I was replying to? I suspect not or you would have realised the relevance of my comment.
I'll repeat it for you...."...has blamed it (i.e. Cannabis) for spikes in violence"
So why doesn't his thought process work the same way when it comes to guns?

Couldn't tell you that one, you would have to ask him but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the vast majority of firearms in this country are used for legal recreational purposes with little to no ill effects on society or the person using them. I have never heard of anyone using heroin recreationally for very long, it seems akin to playing with gas and matches recreationally

 

[David T]

Sessions ending federal policy that let legal pot flourish

So much for Republicans claiming to be pro states' rights, pro business, and pro freedom (but we already knew that last one was B.S.)

At least we agree on one thing Heathen. Hell I live in oregon we are a very green state. It's just more laws like we need more laws and yes repugnants states rights is total bs as usual. But washington politicians are normal.

We love our guns and pot in oregon hippies rednecks with guns just incase washington DC wants to run it. Nice anarchist state actually.

 

[David T]

Did you read the VP's quote that I was replying to? I suspect not or you would have realised the relevance of my comment.
I'll repeat it for you...."...has blamed it (i.e. Cannabis) for spikes in violence"
So why doesn't his thought process work the same way when it comes to guns?

Because guns don't smoke pot!!! Simple everyone knows stoner are really all into guns dude like wow. And speeding, and munchies. Lol.

 

[Stanyon]

We love our guns and pot in oregon hippies rednecks with guns just incase washington DC wants to run it. Nice anarchist state actually.

I know some guys from Tennessee that fit that description.