anyone care to point out to me where the constitution gives this power to congress?

..

prohibiting the growth and consumption for personal uses of a naturally occurring weed is seriously stretching the definition of general welfare of the united states, don't you think?

do you see the personal growth and consumption of a weed as part of commerce among the several states without using the tortured definition given by the USSC?

how does allowing the growth and consumption of marijuana, for personal use, prevent the government from executing its foregoing powers?

That last one, by the way, is what Scalia used in the Raich opinion which pretty much gives congress the authority to tell you whether you can plant carrots, beans, or tomatoes in your garden.

..

timalkin, you really believe that pot-consuming people would move to cocaine, or some other hard drug were pot to become legal?

there's got to be some crazed out cracked up cocaine frenzied Rastafarians in Jamaica then....

..

I'd love to see where you got this from. I drink wine. So, by your theory, I should move on to hard liquor now. I have smoked pot and I rather enjoy it. Wish I could more often. I have NO desire to do any other drug, I don't know any pot smokers that have. And I didn't smoke weed because I smoked cigarettes-in fact, I was a casual non-inhaler of those back when I first toked.
You do realize that you just made the argument FOR legalizing pot, right? You also agreed, by making that statement, that it is pushers that look for the bigger cash that make the harder drugs more available because pot is so mild in comparison, cheap and anyone can grow it.
People who smoke weed aren't looking necessarily for anything more that what pot offers. People who smoke cigarettes aren't necessarily looking for more than what those offer.
Your views are out of touch with reality, Sir.

Fact is, this country is losing its declared 'War on Drugs" because it invests too much time, manpower and money "fighting" something that doesn't warrant the fight it's in.
We are stuffing potheads into prisons and political leaders then make decisions to release prisoners because of overcrowding. Here's an idea-don't put pot users and growers and sellers in prison. Don't want to legalize it? Fine, give them a desk ticket and send them home. The average grower/user isn't involved in violent crime, doesn't belong to any drug cartels that kill for territory rights yet can be and has been sentenced to time that rivals murderers if not drunk drivers.
Which is the most threatening to civility? Pothead, drunk driver or murderer?
According to our courts system, they're equal.

This argument was made pre-prohibition, yet it took an actual constitutional amendment to make it legal. So why does it only take the commerce clause now?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is almost word for word the exact position of the government and the USSC in cases called Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich. This is also the foundation that can allow the US congress to determine whether you can grow corn or tomatoes in a garden, petunias or daisies in your front yard. Now, It might just be me, but I'm pretty damned sure that the framers of the constitution did not believe they were giving that authority and power to the federal government. Do any of YOU here believe that's what the framers wrote when they made the commerce clause?

timalkin, didn't someone here earlier say that you were a libertarian?

i know the convention of a pub discussion militates against information being introduced...but this seems a good moment to break that rule.

there is a ton of money being made as a function of these draconian laws, including the absurd marijuana laws--but i don't believe that folk are looking in the right place to see where it's happening, who benefits from it. money is not made so much from the prohibitions--that is from what is prohibited---money, and a shitload of it, is made from the *fact* of prohibitions. it's made by those lovely people in what we call the prison-industrial complex, in political shorthand.

this gives a nice compact overview, tho it is 4 pages long:

The Phoenix > News Features > Freedom watch: Jailhouse bloc

the debate's been barking up the wrong tree.

this is part of our problem also. When the government can make money on making criminals out of it's citizens (with little or no resistance) why should they stop?

I started cigarettes after pot, and that is anecdotal, but no more than your "many people who smoke marijuana started smoking cigarettes first."
From the other MJ users I know: I'm French, so, smoking cigarettes is pretty much something that a lot of French people do, whether they smoke or not.
But in terms of the Americans I've befriended that did MJ, they often hated tobacco, couldn't even stand it in a spliff(Europeans often use tobacco to consume cannabis, for one of two reasons: to save money by rolling something not made entirely of cannabis, or because in Europe hash is the only form of cannabis available, and is not really smokable by itself).
The fact is, cigarettes and MJ have nothing to do with each other. You could argue that cigarettes are impairing, or have psychoactive effects, but you'd really be pushing it, ask any smoker.

Do you drink at all? I ask because you seem to distinguish alcohol from other drugs, while it is as much of a drug as the next thing. Why would alcohol be any less of a "gateway drug" than marijuana?

timalkin, all you're doing is repeating phrases and talking points from people who are morally apposed to drug use - most of which, by the way, have never tried the substances they campaign against so passionately. You're completely ignoring the points and arguments given to you by actual people who partake in recreational drug use. Have you noticed how a lot of these accounts are similar? There's no group feeding these people phrases and talking points, these are all true accounts. After enough trials, anecdotal evidence can be regarded as factual evidence.

I know people who smoke and are "unproductive" - though they have a job, they spend their free time in the clouds, not really doing much. Who are you to say that this is wrong? So they don't live their lives to their full potentials. That's none of your concern, or anyone else's really. I know people who do the same with alcohol, with video games, with web browsing, with TV. It's no one's business but their own what they do in their free time to relax, so long as it doesn't harm anyone.

I also know people who are very intelligent, going to school full time and busting their asses. Some use drugs, some don't - some for fun, some for relaxation. I know people who are stressed by things that I can't even begin to comprehend - MJ helps them cope, and damn it, if there's anything out there that will help a person when they're down without extreme adverse health effects, then fuck it, why not? What's the harm?

Then there are other people who are incapable of connecting with others and opening up. You can call this social anxiety, depression, or just plain awkwardness. These are the kinds of things that can be treated with real powerful psychotropic drugs that can kill the user if the dosage is wrong; for some people (e.g., yours truly), these things can be treated with MJ, which is a relatively mild effect and impossible to die from.

You've asked for ways that recreational drug use can be beneficial to society. You've been given answers time and time again, but you've skimmed passed them all.

As for the impaired driving argument, it really is laughable. DUI is illegal, period. This doesn't stop people from DUI. Truth is, it never will, because there will always be irresponsible people around. That being said, I'd drive with someone who's high over someone who's drunk any day of the week. Though both are irresponsible beyond words, people who equate the two are simply ignorant of the effects. That's the real crime, if you ask me.

And the gateway argument? Ridiculous. People who want to try, or are very curious about the powerful narcotics (e.g., cocaine, meth, heroin, etc.) are going to try them, regardless of their previous experiences. Additionally, there is enough information out there for anyone with half a brain to understand that the powerful narcotics are the only drugs that can really ruin someone's life from the inside out. Generalities are worthless when describing human actions. I know people who enjoy hallucinogens, but won't touch MJ or narcotics. How does the gateway argument account for this?

..

wait... so it's okay when it's done by a pharmaceutical company manufactures it and makes money of it.

so if they made a THC pill, and the FDA approved it, it's totally fine :)

:thumbsup:

Yea, the stories do, because that statement is directly from the rampant propaganda of the 40's-60's. Hardcore addicts may have started using pot, but pot users don't always go to hardcore drugs, so it became the perfect catchphrase and it is old time believers of those kinds of overblown statements that keep nonviolent recreational tokers going to prison.

Do you drink? Beer on weekends, maybe a martini or two at parties?

..

Yeah, alcoholics drive at 80 thinking they are doing 20, while potheads drive at 20 thinking they are doing 80. but no one has answered when it is safe for a pot smoker to be behind the wheel.

My wife was given hydrocodone recently for neck pain. She couldn't stand the spacy feeling on being on it. I know some people use it for recreational effects, but I don't like feeling altered.

Who are you answering?
No one is advocating abusing anything. Toking weed isn't abuse unless it interferes with daily living and that caveat could be used with anything.
You can repeat your fallacies over and over, that doesn't make them any more true, just makes you believe them more.
At this point, I think you're just making outlandish claims just to get a rise out of people. Ain't workin....


Do you drive a modded PT? I swear you're the same guy....lol

Timalkin, you seem to put a lot of faith in doctors. Do you honestly believe that if a doctor prescribes something it is healthy? Have you read or listened to the side effects of numerous legal prescription drugs? They are far more dangerous than pot. Of course, I don't see how this goes with the discussion. Unless you want to go this way with it. Marijuana doesn't have many strange, fatal side effects like other man-made prescriptions do. Therefore, mj should be allowed to be sold OTC, which in turn would make it legal.


You have your opinion that people should not partake in mind altering substances. That is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But this is a stand-still argument with people standing on the opposite side of the fence.

RB: Are you saying that there is more money made enforcing the prohibition of pot than would be made through taxing it? I was under the impression that the criminal circuit was overloaded and costing money. It seems that taxing pot would save money because even though the people busted for having pot are paying heavy fines, they are costing tax payers in court costs and paperwork. (I admit that I didn't read the compact 4-page article because since this is a pub discussion I want an overview. I could easily go on my own and research, but I do enough of that at work and enjoy discussing ideas with people over reading articles.) So I'm trying to get the gist of what you are saying.

Anyone who supports drug prohibition inevitably has even bigger skeletons in their own closet or other vices that are just as potentially bad. Guns, drugs, sex, pick your poison. Nobody is a saint, everybody's got something. I just think it's so funny how you can't legally own marijuana, possibly the safest drug known to man, in this country, but if you want an assault rifle and bags of ammo, well we'll just hand those out to anyone over 18 who has the cash at Wal-Mart. I was just at a gun range today, 5 mins and a drivers license and you've got a gun in your hand and you're shooting. Why dont we just do the same thing with drugs, require some sort of 1 hour instructional course and give responsible people a license to use. If you demonstrate that you're not responsible, you lose the privilege. I don't support extreme gun control OR prohibition for largely the same reasons: yes they can be dangerous but this was supposed to be a free country and they can both be used responsibly without causing any harm to anyone.

An attitude indicative of a society that once used to assume people were responsible, reduced to one making people prove they are responsible. why?

Because too many people have proven they aren't responsible? Sadly, the idiots spoil it for the rest of us.

nah, but Franklin did ;)


edit: as for the gateway argument, i know three people that started using meth first. ass backwards aye?

shesus---what i'm saying is that there is ALOT of money made from/through the prison-industrial system in the states.
to get your head around it, you need to get your head around how this prison-industrial complex is defined--it's more than prison buildings for example.
i put up the article because it has the virtue of running through the component parts in a quick and accessible way, and does it more efficiently than i could have.

so in this case, it's better to read the article.

after all, i've found myself sitting in pubs reading a newspaper before, haven't you? regularly at the map room back in the day.
and had we been sitting in, say, the map room and i had the article at hand, i would have slid it over at the same point.
there are lots of ways to be in a pub. just saying.

Marijuana Legalization Bills Introduced In Massachusetts

let's try looking at this from a different perspective, shall we?

How many people got angry or upset when you started having to show your ID and sign for cold/sinus/allergy products that contain pseudoephedrine?



in this country alone, we have 300 million people. Given the percentage of people that violate and abuse the laws, is it really 'that many'? or are we not giving ourselves enough credit?

dk---i don't mean to be obtuse, but i have no idea where you're heading with your question. could you make it clearer please?

Didn't upset me at all. I don't get mad at stuff like that; I know I'm doing nothing wrong, signing the page takes 5 seconds, and it's designed to help prevent abuse. Hardly a sacrifice

Legalize all drugs. Make stiff penalities for anyone driving under the influence, or selling to a minor. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is their business. (unless you hear domestic vilolence or know animals are being abused)

not after you spend 30 minutes looking up and down the cold aisle while you're absolutely miserable and just wanted to get your cold meds and get out having to interact with the least amount of human beings as possible.

Continuing with that same "sacrifice" who is to say that a large family purchase is "abuse"? or not?

I'm sorry it's quite a sacrifice. If that's the case because of a few, who is to say that it won't be because of RU486 one day? or some other future drug?

when I can go to Canada, Mexico and many other countries and get prescription strength meds without and prescription.

both Sun Tzu and Cynthetiq get a +1 here.

*mutters something about this being uh-mer-uh-kuh, damnit*

when congress makes a law that 'tightens' up controls on a certain substance, people look at it as a GREAT thing that our beloved government is doing something to make our lives better, but nobody ( and I really mean nobody) bothers to look at why are we letting a government abuse it's authority to make us feel like we're being protected.

Congress uses the commerce clause to make federal laws that they otherwise wouldn't have the constitutional authority to make. Most people don't give a damn about this overreach of authority because they have decided that the states governments are inadequate to deal with some crisis or another. The real truth to this is that most people are quite willing to scrap the constitution altogether in order to let the government make any laws that those particular people feel necessary to make society more 'orderly' or lawful.

The laws that now mandate people to show an ID and sign for purchasing medicines that contain the component pseudoephedrine are based on the commerce clause, that same clause that allows congress to make marijuana illegal.

many times in several posts about legalizing marijuana, i've tried to point out to people the absurdity of congressional power grabbing using the commerce clause and either people are too wary of restricting the federal governments power to make feel good laws, or they just really don't care about the constitution and would rather let the government make shit up on the fly.

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

case in point right here. Derwood doesn't feel affected by taking a few extra seconds to register his name in a federal database to show he's purchased a now controlled substance because a very small percentage figured out how to use a chemical in those cold products to make an illicit drug. So as long as he doesn't FEEL affected, he's willing to let congress do what they want.

Correct. I'm not doing anything wrong, they're not harassing me, so I personally don't care. It doesn't weigh on my mind.

Especially when in the past few months guns have caused more mass shootings in the US than before, and MJ remains mostly harmless.
One beneficial use: relaxation, tim. Some people have stress, pain, and need to relieve it, and most can't take a vacation to a sunny beach. What the hell is wrong with someone sitting on their porch and smoking a fatty, kicking back and watching TV, or play a video game?
What's the difference between doing that and enjoyable a couple beers?
You're being inconsistent, and aren't budging one bit. Where does this irrational fear of marijuana come from?

well, dk, there are a few issues that are mashed together in your post--maybe i'll get back to them later on (it's a nice day and i want to go outside and play for a while)...but i'll say it's obvious you haven't lived in france, where the question of identity registration and papers is much different than it is here--you end up having to use your identification papers for alot more things, alot more routinely, than you do in the states. when i first moved there, i found it really intrusive--but because i had not experienced that before.

on the other hand, i was in france to study left political culture, and found that in many ways france is more free than the united states because of its political culture--this even as power is much more centralized in the state.

and i don't recall anyone arguing: the state can regulate marijuana traffic yay!
i recall people describing it as a simple and easy way to integrate marijuana into the run of other, legal beverages--so into the systems that already exist. none of which existed in anything like the present form in 1788. they just didn't.

but it is still a nice day outside.

something about this set me on edge, but I couldn't quite figure it out until just now.

You say that the entire population must pay the price for the irresponsible or criminal acts of a few, but I call BS on your premise. You do not apply that same standard to the government or police.....why not?

People say this all the time, but nobody has any proof. Yes, it's likely that the most widely available illegal drug is the one that most people will try first, and people who use recreational drugs will most likely have tried the most common one first. Correlation is not causation.
It's a law that doesn't do anything. Most meth is produced outside the country and imported. As domestic production has decreased, imports increased, and that's where the violence comes in.

not to mention that this law was introduced with great public fanfare about how this would put meth labs out of commission, but does anyone realize just how much damned cold/allergy medicine a person would have to buy to realistically produce enough meth to warrant building a lab? regulating how much pseudophedrine a person can buy in one month to avoid running a meth lab is only feeding the federal bureaucracy.

I think the statistic is that it takes 100 Sudafed pills to make one "dose" of meth, which I think they define as 50mg