More regarding the risks on the business side…it seems the DEA is telling security and armored car business not to work with cannabis dealers:
This is the problem with legalization state-by-state; the Feds have plenty of ways to quietly undermine the business (i.e. without the PR disaster of “raids”) such that it’s just not worth it to stay in business.
It’s not that I’m saying that people should be able to damage their brain if they want to, it’s that people should have the right to exercise freedom if they want to. There is risk in driving, roller coasters, swimming, basically everything. As it stands, you are going to get injured and fatalities from what I mentioned, so we shouldn’t then limit someone’s freedom in doing something such as weed, even if it can lead to (reversable?) brain damage and in some cases psychosis.
Furthermore, you can’t look at cigarettes, alcohol AND some (a lot?) of over the counter pills and then say that weed is off limits.
When it is legalized I wonder if establishing pot bars will ever be possible. The same legal arguments that led whole states to outlaw smoking in bars certainly holds for weed as well.
The problem is that second hand pot smoke - does it give bystanders a buzz? If so, thats a whole nother set of liability…
(not a drinker, a smoker or a cusser, damnit)
Of corse it’s does, but even if it didn’t weed does SOME damage to your lungs even second hand. Whatever legal arguments made that cigarettes pose a health hazard in the workplace hold for pot as well.
It depends what’s IN the smoke. “Basic” smoke, which is just aerosolized carbon, can technically be dangerous, but the amount from all but something as thick as a heavily-used smoker’s lounge will get caught long before it can damage your alveoli. This sort of smoke is akin to a campfire or similar. Very few additional substances are flying around that will cause damage. If the soot can get all the way down into your alveoli (not being intercepted by the tubes coated with mucous along the way) it can technically damage, but the probability is fairly low.
Cigarettes, on the other hand, have a huge number of additives designed to enhance addictiveness that, when aerosolized, do extreme damage to the lungs.
So smoking weed *can *cause damage, but it’s not as severe as a cigarette…Well, until Phillip Morris gets involved.
I, personally, recommend people use vaporizers for both their nicotine and marijuana highs.
Note—
Wall Street & Big Banking smell money, in Weed.
Can Federal Legalization be far behind?
I think not!
Yeah, the mob existed before Prohibition, but they were a bunch of tiny local gangs. It wasn’t until Prohibition that they got huge and, though they managed to diversify and keep squeaking by afterwards, they were never anywhere as big or widespread or prominent in society.
What percentage of the cigarette trade in general do you think smuggled cigarettes account for? I’d guess maybe 1% or so in the handful of states that have unusually high cigarette taxes. Right now 100% of the marijuana market is in the hands of criminals (Colorado not withstanding). Yes, there will still be small illegal operations just like there are still people who run moonshine, but it will be a minuscule fraction of the market they control now. It would take a major revenue source away from criminal organizations, especially the Mexican drug cartels.
:dubious:
… and the medicinal market, which includes a bunch of other states?
This is untrue. I’m part of “everyone” and I don’t currently smoke it, but would if it was legal. My boyfriend too.
breaking news: The NH House has voted in favor of legalization.
Unfortunately, the governor has said she would veto it. But a veto can be overruled by a 2/3 majority.
That’s still wrong. People have the right to do some things if we feel it’s not overly dangerous or damaging. If you’re proposing that people should have the freedom to do whatever they want without any exceptions, you’re thinking of a very different type of society from the one we have.
Correct. So all of those things are regulated in different ways. And other activities are illegal because there’s so much risk and so little benefit. We have speed limits on public roads. There aren’t too many people saying we should legalize heroin and crack along with marijuana. (There are some people who feel that way, but I don’t think any state is going to legalize heroin any time soon.) There are limits on the kinds of weapons you can own. The list goes on. So the issue here isn’t “marijuana should be legal because freedom” because you could say that about anything. The deal here is that it should be legal because it causes little harm on the balance and keeping it illegal is stupid.
I agree.
I think he was saying that, while there are risks, those risks are acceptable, just like driving a car or such. Weed, in the two states it’s been legalized thus far, has restrictions similar to alcohol. No one under 21, etc etc.
As a Coloradoan, I haven’t heard people in Denver pushing for legalization to move outside of the restrictions we have on it, which is good. (Well, okay. I did overhear one stoner say that they should make it legal for cats, which is just…that’s just not right.)
Honestly, though, every time we seem to try some form of prohibition, we get unwanted results. I’m think that if we are going to prohibit things, we need to offer alternatives. For instance, when they really came down hard on pain pills (2011? 2012?), half of the police departments in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee reported a drastic increase in heroin busts and use. They couldn’t get the packaged pain pills, anymore, so they turned to “real” drugs. In doing so, we should have offered some sort of no-risk treatment to go with the ban of the pills.
You should also consider changing your name to BobMarley23 for Weed threads. 
I’d agree with that. It’s just a more nuanced argument than the way Gateway said it.
We should definitely put more emphasis on treatment and less on punishing drug addicts.
Off topic: We should focus on treatment for everyone and less on punishment in general. We will always have some people who demand to get strung out and we will always have some people who demand to be some form of criminal, but we could turn a lot of our current populations away from “the life” on both drugs and criminality if we didn’t just lock them in a hole for 20 hours a day and expect them to think about what they’ve done.
In the long run, I think marijuana should probably be legalized.
However, I absolutely disagree with states passing medical marijuana laws or legalizing it on their own, because such laws are grossly unconstitutional and aren’t any more defensible than the states that tried to pass laws declaring Obamacare illegal.
The only constitutionally valid way of legalizing marijuana is through an act of Congress or an administrative reclassification by the DEA.
Cite?
Unconstitutional? No. Illegal? Closer to the truth. But, a state doesn’t necessarily have to consider something criminal that the federal government does and vice versa.
The only constitutional argument to be made is that it may be technically unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate drugs (along with a lot of other federal regulations) based on the clause in the constitution that if the power wasn’t expressly enumerated for the federal government, then it’s a power reserved to the states. But that’s been fairly neutered by two hundred years of jurisprudence.
The first black president is not going to legalize marijuana, forget it.
No president can legalize marijuana on his own. It would require an act of Congress. Obama’s been harsh in handling the drug war, but his administration isn’t getting in the way of state-level marijuana laws. I’m not sure where race factors into this, but if anything policing and sentencing disparities are one more reason Obama should support decriminalization, legalization, and medical marijuana laws.