New Bill Would End Federal Marijuana Prohibition

Yea & they took the criminal element out of the equation by making it legal, gave business opportunity to make a living, provided jobs & allow's a bloke like me the opportunity to buy a legal product, the government to tax what I buy....it's all good! :thumbsup:

 

I wouldn't say its all good but it certainly seems a whole lot better than the situation under prohibition.

 

Doesnt John Bohnert (sp?)'s family own a tavern? And look at him:laugh:

 

Legalization or decriminalization will not end the underground economy for pot. This is a bromide. Otherwise, there wouldn't be the underground economies for movies, cigarettes, booze....you name it.

Second, no one here is making a libertarian argument. It's all about government taxation and control. I find that curious.

Third, Ron Paul has been supportive of decriminalization for a long time, so it's no sudden conversion. However, he usually keeps this kind of thing quiet when he's running for POTUS. So while it's not uncommon for him to be bought and paid for with pork or lobbyists, it's not necessarily why he's for this. More taxes equals more pork for the King of the Trough.

 

Yes, and because we can make money on it, we ought to allow it. Who cares about the human cost of alcohol and marajuana as long as the bottom line is increased?

Thanks for an alarming insight into our political and Biblical convictions.

 

You must live in Fairyland. Difference between you & I is I would prefer to confront sin head on while you appear to sweep it under the rug. BTW, do you support any drug & alcohol treatment centers in your community?

 

So because I don't support the legalization of marajuana, i don't confront sin. Confronting sin is not about making it legal. It's about taking a stand against it, NOT saying, (as you did)

Yes, i do support treatment centers... btw, did the legalization of alcohol end all the drunkenness or the alcohol treatment centers?

 

Great then. & no but it took it out from under the rug. Do you think sweeping any sin under the rug makes it go away.....come on tom, your not that naive. And if it was legal, your telling me that youd boycott any hard working individual who profits from it? Do you do the same thing to owners of taverns & liqueur stores? Do you do sermons on temperance?

 

Shouldn't be a federal issue to begin with. I agree with taking it out of the federal level and letting the states decide.

 

As a matter of fact, i do preach against alcohol and drugs, whether legal or illegal. It would be your selling it, if it did become legal, that would be sweeping it under the rug. Just because something is legal does not make it any less sin.

You're the naive one if you think that legalization will be the end of drug problems. I believe that it's the Nethedlands that legalized it in the past and is now starting to move towards makking it illegal again.

I can't believe I am having a debate about marijuana legalization with other Bible believers. So with this, i am ending my participation.

 

Great Idea!Why not?:thumbs:

 

I agree with you completely.. It is this very disconnect that keeps me leaving this site and coming back.. Way too many CINO's

 

I don't agree with legalization of marijuana for recreational use. I just don't think it should be regulated at the federal level. Let's the states decide these issues like they are supposed to do.

I am in favor of it for medical use. The same folks on here that are crying about marijuana certainly would have no problem pushing their little button and getting a fix of morphine.

 

Speaking of, when's the last time Americans were killed in turf wars over these underground goods? My point exactly. Typically, "legalizing it will end the black market" doesn't mean all illegal activity pertaining to it will immediately cease. Rather, it typically means most, if not all, violent activity pertaining to it will cease. It's hard to fathom how that's 1) implausible; 2) bad.

 

Forgot to ask:

What evidence exists for this claim? Even if Paul accepts campaign contributions from X (however you'd like to define that term), what evidence is there that he's selling out his true convictions? If simply taking cash from someone equates to being bought, and I'm not sure what other sign you'd point to in Paul's case, then isn't everyone bought? Interestingly enough, Paul has one of the largest grass roots base of donors of any candidate in history... are they the ones buying him? Are corporations? If so, which? And how would we distinguish his being bought from another candidate's receiving cash, such as one that you support, and then (coincidentally?) voting in a favorable way for the very same?

In other words, cite?

 

FWIW, opensecrets.org lists Paul's main contributors as the following:

And...

Also, ontheissues.org cites Paul only receiving a 46% approval rating from the Big Business lobbyists, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the most active and well financed group of lobbyists in the world... this was due mostly to his refusal to back the bailouts which more mainstreams Conservatives did... So, if being bought out equates to being "paid for with pork or lobbyist", well, you've got much, much bigger concerns than Ron Paul. Even if you want to assume the worst about Paul's motives and accuse him of being bought, the total costs of his selling out is a rounding error compared to his mainstream counterparts.

 

FWIW, Paul's take on earmarks is as follows:

Given his quirkiness and no-compromise attitude on transparency, this isn't that hard to believe.

 

But it does significantly reduce these things. The only way to get rid of the underground economy is to totally deregulate it.

I would make the argument if I thought there was any chance of it happening But given that the government IS going to be involved, I will simply hold that legalization is a better option than criminalization.