Legal Status of Marijuana

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I know that this can be more of a state and municipal issue rather than a federal one.

Sadly, it is a federal issue, whether we like it or not.  Your state could make the hippie lettuce completely legal, and your municipality could then set up a community hemp farm and hash bar...

...and the FBI/DEA/ATF would swoop in, automatic weapons a-blazin', and take everyone into federal custody.  And probably have the state and municipal goverments executed for treason.

Hooray for states' rights!

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I know that this can be more of a state and municipal issue rather than a federal one.

Sadly, it is a federal issue, whether we like it or not.  Your state could make the hippie lettuce completely legal, and your municipality could then set up a community hemp farm and hash bar...

...and the FBI/DEA/ATF would swoop in, automatic weapons a-blazin', and take everyone into federal custody.  And probably have the state and municipal goverments executed for treason.

Hooray for states' rights!

You are quite correct.

The voters in my state TWICE voted to reduce penalties on possession of small amounts of marijuana, and voted for medical marijuana, but the feds are blocking the will of the people.

Dumb question: How is this Constitutional?  I mean, I know a lot of the Federal drug laws were derived from the Commerce Clause, but how can Jimmy Stoner growing ditchweed for himself on his back porch have anything to do with interstate commerce?  What gives the federal government the power to make and enforce drug laws?

For more on Commerce Clause abuse: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20031105.shtml

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Marijuana ought to be legal.

Why is Ritalin legal, while marijuana isn't?

Ritalin is meant to be used with a perscription for medical problems such as ADD, and has been effective in helping control the symptoms for years.  It's just like any other Rx....there is going to be a market for anything that has ANY kind of psychological effect, which is unfortunate, but a reality just the same.

And as far as weed...yeah it's a pretty "tame" drug as far as drugs go, but where do we draw the line?  What are the guidelines going to be for deciding what's "ok" vs. what is still considered criminal?  

Let me turn that around.  Why is marijuana illegal, and not alcohol?  Why do we draw the line there?   Why not make all recreational drugs illegal?  Surely, alcohol is the cause of grave social ills - much moreso than pot.  Nobody smokes pot and then beats up their spouse.  Fights and riots don't break out because a bunch of people get stoned.  And there certainly is no legitimate medical use for alcohol.  At least not in the age of modern anesthesia.

And why stop at alcohol?  Caffiene causes a national epidemic of anxiety and insomnia.  Insomnia leads to people driving to work in the morning unrested - putting other drivers at risk!  Anxiety costs our businesses millions of dollars in lost productivity, and raises the costs of health insurance to pay for Paxil and Prozac.

My point is, you do have to draw the line somewhere, but illegal marijuana and legal alcohol makes no sense whatsoever.  Pot should be treated exactly the same as alcohol.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

what it comes down to is this:  alcohol is unsafe, yes, caffeine is addictive, yes,  Rx meds can be a source of addiction, yes.  but here's the facts:  no one is going to go for making alcohol illegal, again.  while i believe in free choice and all that good stuff, there has to be some regulation.  i see no benefit to making the possession of mj legal.  

I see plenty of benefits:
1. We can use our limited law-enforcement resources to combat real crime.
2. We can save taxpayer money by not having to keep non-violent perpetrators of victimless, imaginary crimes locked up in our penal system.
3. We can focus our efforts on actually treating people with drug problems (although, in the case of MJ, very few users have a "problem"), rather than stygmitizing and criminalizing them.
4. We can eleminate the crime associated with trafficking illegal substances (we should have learned that lesson from prohibition).
5. We can regulate MJ so that the product people use is completely safe. (people are going to use pot whether it's illegal or not, so we might as well make sure that the pot they are using is safe.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe, absolutely, that there should be strict laws against driving under the influence of any impairing substance.  Because you are putting others at risk.  But why should we have laws against doing things that don't put anyone else at risk?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are lots more issues in criminalizing a substance than there are in regulating it.  Imagine if we brought back prohibition.  It would be a law enforcement nightmare.  Criminalizing a substance as abundant as MJ is also a law enforcement nightmare.  It is unnecessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your argument is that we should stay with the status quo because it's the status quo.  Well, the status quo is criminalizing millions of Americans unnecessarily, costing us a ton of money, expanding the power of the Federal government beyond its Constitutional limits, and causing the government to intrude into our lives in ways it has no business doing.

I don't like the status quo.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

You'd make a good libertarian, Beef.

Responding to your 'undecided' sig, I'd recommend Badnarik. I've got him linked in my sig. If you're looking for other people to vote for in other offices, here's Libertarians running in your state: http://www.lpwi.org/candidates.html

The thought had crossed my mind.  My (extreme right-wing) grandmother votes LP from time to time.  I myself voted for Ed Thompson for governor in 2002 (>10% LP vote got them on the state canvassing board).

The problem I have with the LP is they go too far to the extreme.  I don't think totally open borders is a good idea, I don't think completely unrestricted foreign trade is a good idea.  I do think the state does have an important role to play in promoting the general welfare, ensuring a level playing field for business, safeguarding our natural resources, etc.  A lot of the LP platform is at odds with these principles.