Featured Ten good, solid reasons marijuana should remain illegal

Unless you're claiming that it falls under regulating interstate commerce, I don't see where the Constitution gives the government that authority or responsibility.

 

TND, I went back to the particular thread I had in mind from last month and realize I was wrong about what you said on prohibition. For that, I apologize.

 

The federal government isn't regulating the sale of marijuana or any other "illegal drug".

If the federal government were to regulate the sale of marijuana the same restrictions could be applied to it that apply to the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of alcohol. Now having said that I personally feel this should be left up to the states. Obviously the federal government and many so called conservatives disagree with me on this though as both seem to be enamored with federal power over the states these days.

If the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of marijuana were regulated it would help to bring in some badly need tax revenues to help pay off some of the debt we owe to the criminal bankers that make huge profits from laundering the money from the unregulated black market drug trade for the big drug cartels. And who knows maybe it would do something the federal government cannot and was never meant to do, create private sector jobs for the hundreds of thousands of Americans that desperately need them.

As it is now the regulation of marijuana and other "outlawed" drugs is left in the hands of the big drug cartels. And the government and so called conservatives seem to be just fine with this evidently because they love having the power to coerce and incarcerate people more than freedom, added tax revenues and the ability to actually have some form of government regulation.

 

Texas has criminalized the possession, use, and sale of marijuana within it's borders.

That must meet your approval.

 

You mean decriminalized?

 

Because if one smokes enough of it before church, Mary will appear right before your eyes during the invitation.

 

LTNS, anyway, despite Washington and Colorado and several states that are about to legalize it, some states never will. I assume this is true of Texas, and know it is Kentucky. There is no legislature that would ever pass that bill in our state. Anyone who voted for it would be out the next election.

 

Nope.

Exactly as stated. Should meet your approval. It's state law.

 

Even more and Mary will be joined by Juan.

 

Fine with me if Texans enjoy spending $378,820 everyday or $19,698,640 a year to keep people incarcerated for minor drug possession charges when they could be using the increased tax money from legalizing and regulating it instead who am I to question it?

It's their tax money and liberty to do with as they please.

To bad for these Texas citizens though. It's a regular occurrence in Tennessee.

Sucks to be a citizen with cash but at least someone is benefiting from the drug war. Right?

It's going to be interesting to see what happens when other states look at how much the economies of Colorado and Washington are improving compared to their own.

Ya know what they say "money talks bull.... walks". :smilewinkgrin:

 

I just knew it would meet with your approval , since it is STATE law.

Apparently...not really. Just as I suspected.

You just want marijuana possession distribution and use decriminalized. Period. If that's what you believe or want, ok. Just stop hiding behind the should be regulated by the states baloney.

Then there's the fact that your dollar figure is misleading. The $383,320 IS FOR ALL DRUG ARRESTS, not just marijuana.

 

Same old Carpro.

I just want common sense and individual liberty to prevail. If you don't want to live in a free country rather than a police state that's fine just stop acting like you do.

 

Your position is vague and two tracked. One is either for legalization or against it. It is a two choice issue, there is not a third answer. Whether or not you personally feel is should be legal or not, that is not the first consideration. Since the Bible says we are to obey the laws of the land. That means, regardless how you feel about it, our first duty is to obey the law, which means we stay away from it. It is against the law in every state despite the two that passed laws legalizing it, as federal law prohibits its use. Really that should be the end of the debate there.

If it were legal, then all the things you said might make sense, the morality of using it, how the government can control it etc.

 

That looks pretty bad for all the people in the bible God praised for disobeying the government doesn't it. Must be He didn't understand what He said when He said "we are to obey the laws of the land. That means, regardless how you feel about it".

Will this misinterpretation and misapplication of scripture ever end?

Hitler would be proud to have people like you working for him as PR agents. Sheesh.

 

The benefits of Tax revenue from the legalization for the sale of marijuana is most likely drastically overstated as well.


Let's use alcohol as an example:


Austin, Texas, the poster child for liberalism in Texas, is also the the drunk capitol of Texas.


http://reportingtexas.com/drunk-driving-alcohol-injuries-taxpayers-cost-texas/

This doesn't even take a glance at the cost to society of the incarceration and treatment of alcohol abuers in purely dollar terms. The cost to society in broken homes and families is incalculable.

Why would anyone expect the cost for legalization of the possession, sale and use of marijuana to be any less?

 

If alcoholism is such a problem in Austin maybe you should start a campaign to criminalize it "for the greater good".

Consider the consequences of drug prohibition today: 500,000 people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails for nonviolent drug-law violations; 1.8 million drug arrests last year; tens of billions of taxpayer dollars expended annually to fund a drug war that 76% of Americans say has failed; millions now marked for life as former drug felons; many thousands dying each year from drug overdoses that have more to do with prohibitionist policies than the drugs themselves, and tens of thousands more needlessly infected with AIDS and Hepatitis C because those same policies undermine and block responsible public-health policies.

And look abroad. At Afghanistan, where a third or more of the national economy is both beneficiary and victim of the failed global drug prohibition regime. At Mexico, which makes Chicago under Al Capone look like a day in the park. And elsewhere in Latin America, where prohibition-related crime, violence and corruption undermine civil authority and public safety, and mindless drug eradication campaigns wreak environmental havoc.

All this, and much more, are the consequences not of drugs per se but of prohibitionist policies that have failed for too long and that can never succeed in an open society, given the lessons of history. Perhaps a totalitarian American could do better, but at what cost to our most fundamental values?

Why did our forebears wise up so quickly while Americans today still struggle with sorting out the consequences of drug misuse from those of drug prohibition?

It's not because alcohol is any less dangerous than the drugs that are banned today. Marijuana, by comparison, is relatively harmless: little association with violent behavior, no chance of dying from an overdose, and not nearly as dangerous as alcohol if one misuses it or becomes addicted. Most of heroin's dangers are more a consequence of its prohibition than the drug's distinctive properties. That's why 70% of Swiss voters approved a referendum this past weekend endorsing the government's provision of pharmaceutical heroin to addicts who could not quit their addictions by other means. It is also why a growing number of other countries, including Canada, are doing likewise.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122843683581681375

 

Same ole poncho.

Can't stand the heat, blow smoke.

 

What heat? You think jumping in at the end of two long threads and acting like you've just debunked every fact and detail in them with a couple of your insults isn't blowing smoke?

:laugh: That's rich.

 

No idea who you are, but the rudeness is unnecessary. Not the way to make a point. Several people got in big trouble a couple of days ago for as much.

Anyway, the law of the land is to be obeyed and would refer you to Romans 13:1-10. Unless our rights are being suppressed or the law goes against our beliefs, then you are to obey them. Anyway, why would a Christian try to disobey a law not to smoke pot. And you accuse others of misapplying Scripture. Are you serious? This is a joke, right?

Romans 13:1-10 addresses our responsibility to the authority of human
government and to the law of God. Unfortunately, many Christians use
this passage to cave in to anything the government tells them to do.
They become like sheep (also known as "sheeple") headed for the slaughter.
I think this is very dangerous behavior.

In the United States and Canada the government works for us -- not the other way
around. Absolutely, we need to pay our taxes and adhere to the laws
of the land in order to maintain civil peace and an orderly society.
But, when the government oversteps it's bounds, I believe we, as
Christians and people who live in a republic, have the obligation to
act against abuses of power. This is becoming increasingly important
as our rights and freedoms are being systematically stripped from us.

 

You know I feel the same way unfortunately there are some people around here that can only comprehend the English language when it's written in blunt edged simple terms.

You might call it rude. Be that as it may you're going to see alot of it here in the politics forum some people here even specialize in being rude and obnoxious so you better start growing a very thick skin or find a kinder gentler forum to spend your time.

Just giving you fair warning.

Yeah I've read it several times now. I've also read the rest of the bible and I have a pretty good if imperfect understanding of it as a whole. God never meant for us to act like slaves to unrighteous and conniving men which have a natural tendency to seek power over others through political means or religion.

I've never seen this particular disclaimer in Romans 13. Can you point me to it?

Why would you ask this question? No one here that is arguing against prohibition is advocating breaking any laws. We're simply questioning the wisdom and justness of the laws in place.

Matter of fact it is kind of. The idea that Romans 13 can be applied to our modern day republican form of government without examining the historical context in which it was written and comparing it to the system of government we have now has been discussed and debunked so many times here over the years most of us that have been around for them all just laugh it off.

Romans 13 addresses the conditions 1st century Christians had to adapt to in order to survive in a system of world government that literally considered Caesar the law incarnate.

My point exactly.

I believe the correct spelling is "sheople". And there is quite a large flock of them residing right here on this forum board. I'm sure you'll get to butt heads with them if you don't get into big trouble for being rude. :smilewinkgrin:

Maybe you should try and explain this concept to the government. It doesn't seem to be able to grasp it anymore. BTW the government violates the law of the land (US Constitution) by imposing a direct tax on our income and uses it's unconstitutional power to coerce us (under the color of law) into waiving our fifth amendment right that is meant to protect us from forced self incrimination. Does the government itself not have a responsibility to obey the law of the land also?

I agree. But how are we supposed to do this? I don't buy into the whole leftie vs rightie thing anymore. We don't have a two party system as most of "sheople" here love to believe. We have one out of control authoritarian party that gives us a choice of two paths to same totalitarian state every two to fours years.

Okay I'm going to offer this warning now so you can't come back later and say I didn't warn you. By making this last statement you just put yourself in the crosshairs of a very rude speaking minority of authoritarians that are always trying to pass themselves off as "conservatives" and "liberals".

The state and it's awesome power is their idol and there is no individual liberty or amount of privacy they are not willing to give up or take away in order to feel safe or in control of other's private lives.