Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years ago
    Want to stop crime? Lower its profit through competition.
    This could also have a major long term economic effect on other crops that hemp competes with, e.g., cotton and man-made petro fabrics.
    How about a bill making alcohol distillation for personal use legal, too?
    And a bill to eliminate tax collection on certain weapons.
    Then defund the BATF because it has no mission. (And shouldn't have had one since alcohol prohibition was repealed.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years ago
    Sounds good, but I would leave God out of it. Let's stick to the practicality of treating all plants as.....plants. Otherwise the arguments may well deteriorate into religious diatribes which will put the whole idea off track.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years ago
    The sooner society halts all forms of criminalizing behavior and falls back to protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the freer and better off we'll all be. I own myself--no-one else has any rights over my mind and body or my values.

    5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners! What a bunch of hooey!

    All nannys, get a hobby.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by samrigel 9 years ago
    Drugs are not the problem, illegal drugs are the problem.It is said a $300 a day heroin addiction would only be about $3 a day if the drug wasn't illegal. Likewise with all other narcotics. If Billie Bob grows marijuana and smokes it how has a crime been committed since there is no victim. The high cost of illegal drugs is where the crime comes from, addicts must steal to support the ever higher costs. Whether participating in drugs is morally right or wrong in irrelevant.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
    You can't have liberty nor happiness without life. Protecting citizens lives is the first and perhaps in a word only reason for government. 230 years and they still haven''t figured out their mission statement.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago
      Protecting citizens' lives from violation of their rights by *others* I agree with. But being an adult is all about getting to make risk/reward decisions such as drug use for yourself individually, whether the drug in question is a plant or requires a chem lab to produce.

      This is where I most strongly disagree with the argument that "the right to life is the fount of all other rights." It is not. SELF-OWNERSHIP is.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
        Part and parcel of protecting the life of a citizen is protecting their other rights such as property rights. But since that is a non existent legal concept in the US one can only shrug and say - way it should have been. Those who place property rights first obviously live in a state with no property taxes. I've never had the pleasure but get around the; tax by owning no property. Although I remember one proposed tax was this is how much you owe and would be paying IF you had responsibility for an amount of real estate.

        The way I judge a state is the tax system, is a two or more party system of government available, and how well they protect the citizens. So far there's at least fifty found wanting
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years ago
    One thing I have to ask: why is any Objectivist a proponent of people intentionally degrading or destroying one's rational thought through drug use? I just don't get it. If the highest pursuit of man is to use logic at all times for decision-making, why would one condone a practice that has as its number one effect a deleterious effect on the mind and its logical pursuits?

    I'm all for reducing the size of government, but I can't get behind a project that encourages the destruction of rational thought and is accompanied by so many social ills and is devoid of production. "The mind is a terrible thing to waste."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by terrycan 9 years ago
    Washington State has legalized recreational marijuana. It is heavily taxed. My home state now has some problems they did not predict.
    Untaxed weed is cheaper and is the majority of the trade.
    Legal dealers are finding it difficult to make a profit.
    Law enforcement will have the task of going after untaxed sellers a buyers. This will be very unpopular.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Technocracy 9 years ago
      I wonder if the revenuers in Washington will get the same warm reception
      they did in the Ozarks.

      One of those unintended consequences politicians always fail to think of.

      Taxes raising the price of legal weed so the illegal weed is cheaper....absolutely brilliant!!!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago
      In effect that's not legalization at all (at least of sale, though at least end-users are pretty much off the hook now).

      Any benefits of eliminating the black market won't be seen until the legal stuff is at least slightly cheaper than the illegal.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 9 years ago
    He's just a pothead at heart that wants some justification for his lifestyle.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 9 years ago
      wow. do you have some sort of cite to prove that? and why does he need to justify his lifestyle? He is obviously somewhat successful in making it to state level govt. I know nothing of his merits and find his god argument weak, but ....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by scojohnson 9 years ago
        LOL.. point taken. I'm not impressed by state legislature... I know [many] in California, they are just not the sharpest tool in the toolshed, and more often than not seem to be college dropouts that claim they graduated, hug a veteran for a vote but never served themselves, and that $90k salary is the best thing they ever had in their lives for about 70% of them.

        It's a pretty predictable career path - intern during the poli sci major in college, then get a staffer job in someone's district, get promoted to the capital staff, then maybe a legislative analyst or constituent PR rep for a few years, then Chief of Staff for someone, and get hooked up eventually with a county central committee, a campaign manager (that takes a cut of donations) and some fundraising types.

        Real 'producers' in society rarely do that because by the point they have the time in their career (I've considered it) to look at doing something for the public good, they can't afford the pay cut or the BS of it all.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years ago
    I agree with every bit of the article and wonder why the Sheriff's association cares whether marijuana is decriminalized. They would care about a law that gives them better/worse equpiment or how much action they're authorized to take on annoymous tips, but why should they care about the details of what specific things are illegal?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Technocracy 9 years ago
      Seriously???

      1. Whether or not Marijuana is illegal represents a significant change in enforcement policy and training. So they care about that for a number of reasons.

      2. Marijuana is a significant drug cartel/organized crime product. Decriminalizing Marijuana alters the income for the cartels, something they will not be happy about. Likely to cause them to lash out to either A: maintain the revenue or B: protest the lost revenue. Police are certainly going to care about that since either one means increased violence.

      ANY change to drug laws, especially in border states directly affects the policing environment in a range of ways.

      Marijuana should never have been treated the way it has been. As usual the lessons of history (Prohibition) were ignored, and now we will have problems unraveling from it.

      Bottom line, for the police/sheriff/border patrol in border states especially, it could cause a dramatic change in their work environment, and not necessarily reducing their danger. So YES they care about the changes.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years ago
        " Decriminalizing Marijuana alters the income for the cartels, something they will not be happy about. Likely to cause them to lash out to either A: maintain the revenue or B: protest the lost revenue. Police are certainly going to care about that since either one means increased violence"

        If it's sold legally, the cartels are dead. Violence decreases. The criminals would find some other criminal activity to get involved with, but this one would be gone.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Technocracy 9 years ago
          Marijuana should never have been made illegal to the level it has in the first place. However since it was, we have consequences to deal with when things are changed.

          1. The cartels have illegal products beyond pot, and thus would not be "dead"

          2. You make the assumption that the cartels will meekly let that revenue go. Something that they have certainly not done in the past. Inter-Cartel violence is over territory encroachment and the resultant revenue changes. Why do you think they will not act on that change.

          3. The likely pursuit for the cartel if this change occurs would be extortion/protection on all the "legal" pot dealers right off the bat. With the longer term goal of driving them out of business. The extortion/protection gives them some of the lost revenue back while they drive the competition under.

          4. To recover all of their revenue, they need only eliminate the "legal" competition and drive the price back where they want it.

          I put "legal" in quotes for a few reasons.

          First, just because TX makes it legal, it is still illegal under federal law. As scojohnson pointed, out, the federal enforcement agencies are still free to act, albeit under altered circumstances.

          Second, if this change happens, then the cartels themselves become "legal" in TX, for that product at least. Making it much harder to prosecute them for their other activities.

          Third, the governments, local, state, and federal, will attempt to control the pot market, just like everything else. And they will FAIL. When they fail, that will increase the chaos even more.

          Bottomline ----

          Decriminalizing pot locally instantly destabilizes a situation that was none to stable to begin with.

          Do not expect a quiet and peaceful outcome.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago
            #1 is true as far as it goes. However, the demand for stronger substances is much less than for marijuana. A lot of people who try the harder stuff get their first taste from their local (illegal) pot dealer; "legal" dealers don't carry those things. Thus, to the extent "legal" pot costs less than black market pot, it makes the hard stuff much more difficult for both addicts and potential new users to find. Their sources won't be in business anymore.

            #2 -- What do you expect the cartels to do, shoot it out with cops? The cops would love that, and would easily win. Actually the cartels ARE fighting the change to some extent -- by supporting politicians who want to keep pot illegal and penalties high.

            #3 -- Extortion on the "legal" dealers won't work any more than it does on fully legal businesses. The local cops will either help the victims, or if the cartel does gain control, the feds will come in and shut that business down. (Organized crime involvement is one of the 10 problems the DEA has said will provoke it to act.)

            #4 -- This I don't buy at all, because bills like Colorado's do more than legalize shops selling pot -- they also legalize growing your own, and many users will do exactly that rather than pay the new high taxes to legally purchase pot.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Technocracy 9 years ago
              1. Disagree that legalizing pot will cause the cartels to go under. If the coke/heroin/etc trade was not worth their effort they would not be in it. Legalizing pot will impact them.

              2. I expect the cartels to pressure the non-cartel distorters, not shoot outs with the cops.

              3. I hope I'm wrong, but we will have to see how thing shake out. Assuming the change happens.

              4. Some people will grow their own to save money. How many will keep at it is a different question though. I think a lot of people will give that up due to the work involved. Growing doesn't fit well with the instant gratification mind set.

              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years ago
            "Decriminalizing pot locally instantly destabilizes a situation that was none to stable to begin with. "
            Yes. My prediction if marijuana were truly decriminalized at all levels is your item #1 would predominate and the cartels would go to other illegal activities and leave marijuana alone. I think criminalization causes the cartels and undoing it removes them, at least from this one area of the economy.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 9 years ago
        cartels don't care where their money comes from. frankly, shooting up a marijuana retail site and taking their cash-since banks aren't letting the businesses open accts-is easier and cheaper than growing it, running it, delivering it, protecting it. I see the violence removing from the border and heading inland. just my 2 c
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years ago
          "shooting up a marijuana retail site and taking their cash"
          I suspect the retailers would find some alternative banking system that will work with them, unless the gov't won't allow any bank-like institutions to work with retailers.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago
            Existing "money laundering" laws make it illegal for banks to accept deposits from pot dealers. Colorado is trying to get federal permission to open a credit union that would serve them. So far it hasn't been granted.

            This is not the same thing as Operation Choke Point (which technically does not make it illegal for banks to serve the targeted businesses, but merely threatens a federal audit for money laundering against any bank that does serve them).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by scojohnson 9 years ago
        I don't see how the Texas Legislature can do anything to influence DEA or Border Patrol enforcement policy.

        If they want to not have the local deputies and police involved, to each their own, just don't cry about a generation of useless young adults.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Technocracy 9 years ago
          None of those agencies operate in a vacuum. If local LEOs deployments and actions change, it affects the other agencies too. Indirectly, but it does affect them.

          Local LEOs are backup and extra bodies for those other agencies as well as intelligence sources. Do not ignore 2nd order effects.

          The Law of unintended consequences has not been repealed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 9 years ago
      I think it is because police are people. We have now raised a couple of generations to believe that 'pot is evilbad'. This leads to two kinds of behaviors: people avoiding pot so they will not be bad; people seeking pot so that they can feel evil. (NB There are many nice people in the second category, but that is a different discussion.)

      Law Enforcement folk are generally conservative, so pot legalization compromises their personal ethical stances and makes them believe that they can no longer go after the 'bad guys' who sell pot.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo