When rich people and corporations care about pot being legal, it will be legal. Until then, the rest of us can go fish.
I think a big part of it is also the tremendous funding coming into state and local police forces under the guise of “fighting drugs”. Those boys like their toys, and legalizing drugs will cut their weapons funding to the bone.
I’m not sure why my local county police force needs a big fan boat like in the Everglades - I live in NW Indiana, and I guess they’re supposed to use it to snare coke dealers going down the Little Calumet River…
That is more or less my view too. Same with a true universal health care system. When it is in their interest you will see bipartisan support.
The “War On Drugs” has been very profitable for a large constitents:
-judges
-prosecutors
-lawyers
-policemen
-Federal Agencies (DEA, FBI,etc.)
Entire careers have been built on it-the pay is good, and opprtunities unlimited.
I don’t see anything changing, until the profit is taken out of drugs. A total waste of money, and exceptionally stupid.
Always blaming the rich for everything, eh? :rolleyes: There’s tremendous profits to be found in marijuana. Not to mention the rich are generally more socially permissive.
No, ya gotta, just for a couple seconds.
That’s very interesting. Do you have a cite for that?
For example, on the exit polling for Prop 8 in California in 2008 which banned gay marriage:
That doesn’t really appear to show what you’re claiming it does. It’s a curve, not a rising line - and a relatively shallow curve, at that. The top incomers seem to have similar views to the bottom.
Well the very worst thing to say is that they are weak on crime and weird as well. Proposing legalization makes you vulnerable to ridicule and moral panic.
Put another way, swing voters are more likely to go against you than for you.
Popular enough to win a plurality in a US election? Doubtful. Popular enough to drain votes away from opponents most similar to you? Maybe. Methinks a Green Leaf party and a Libertarian one could secure 5-15% support in most districts, maybe more after they are established. But in a first-past-the-post system like the US, that gets you nothing or worse. Recognizing that, the citizenry wisely ignores small parties.
No European country, including the Netherlands, has legalized pot. But punishment for usage and selling of soft drugs is far milder. That lessens some of the incentive for the establishment of a Green Leaf party, which admittedly has a laugh test problem.
An excellent book on drug policy: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know®: 9780199764501: Medicine & Health Science Books @ Amazon.com
Legalization turns out to be problematic in the absence of campaign finance reform. A powerful lobby and a phalanx of MBAs would promote any legal drug relentlessly, leading to enhanced usage and public health issues. Harm reduction is another matter: I support that.
Similar to me? You don’t know me very well. I am a big government liberal, and my candidates are big government liberals. A small government third party candidate who actually walks the walk would drain more votes away from Republican candidates, who just mouth the words, but spend more and grow government just as much as Democrats. A true small government third party candidate would appeal to conservatives who are sick of being pandered to by big government Republicans.
Similar to the hypothetical candidate, Fear. A spoiler.
You should. Gets you high faster.
[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi]
There’s tremendous profits to be found in marijuana.
[/QUOTE]
Tremendous now, because it’s illegal, (relatively) scarce and people can’t grow a couple plants on their windowsills to sustain their own consumption.
If it became legal, there’d be no more profit in it than in lettuce, and much less than in tobacco (because people smoke in packs/day while even the most assiduous stoners still count their daily joints in single digits)
This really does not do anything to make your case.
It is just as likely that fewer rich folks are “religious,” (a much higher predicter of the direction of one’s vote in that election), as that they are “more permissive,” (whatever that might mean in any given context).
In addition, you are stilll only talking about a difference of 10% in votes. That is a wide margin for an election, but it is nearly meaningless in making a generalization about a group’s attitudes on issues. It represents only a small majority, not a trend for the whole population. (Contrast the nearly 2/3 of “Christians” who favored Prop 8 or the more than 8 in 10 weekly church-goers).
He campaigned on this point and it convinced me to vote for him. I was disappointed to find out it was just talk.
I’m not sure this is the case. Anyone can grow shitty pot, and that might suffice for some users, but it takes some skill and an investment in expensive equipment to produce high-quality strains. Breweries haven’t closed and vineyards haven’t gone to seed just because people can make their own beer and wine in the basement.
I thought the medical angle was just a cheap trick at first. But, there are valid reasons for not throwing the door open and allowing everyone to use pot any time they want. By backing into legalization the way we have done it - let this group use it, then the next group, then maybe everybody - I think we are taking the most cautious, if twisted and torturous, route. Basically we are testing pot on the sick people first to see if they go crazy.
It didn’t take any effort at all to make it illegal but now we have built a number of industries around the war on drugs. It is going to take some time to ease those industries off their DEA money habit without withdrawal pains.
I think we should have said, “Well guys, we’re broke. So we can fight the war on terror, or the war on drugs, but not both. Well turn the DEA into the Department of Homeland Security, or leave it alone. What do you want?”
Takes a good deal of acreage to produce even a single bottle of wine, as I understand it. Making alcohol is an inherently wasteful process, even more so if we’re talking about spirits and such. It’s not something you can really do in the big city, for example. That said, I can agree with you that most homegrown pot would be ditchweed. But then, what most people smoke ATM is ditchweed too, so…
I’m not saying there’d be no money in it whatsoever, just not the kind of money narcotraficantes get out of it now. Would be interesting to know whether Big Crime is still involved in selling the ganj at all in Belgium or the Netherlands, or if there are any large Weed Inc. there.
Total drug decriminalization has reduced drug use in Portugal. Scare tactics that decriminalization will increase drug use have been shown to be false when we have a real life model that has worked. The War on Drugs is worse than the problem it’s trying to solve. I suspect some politician or party will adopt the Portugal system in the next decade and it will spread. Sadly, I think the US will be one of the last countries to try it.