|
Brave New World posted:I've always been sadly mystified by the existence of the kind of kids that actually work with LEOs on those stings. I expect that they're all socially malignant christian conservatives that are planning on a career in LE. They're just snitches. Usually they do it to get out of charges.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Brave New World posted:I've always been sadly mystified by the existence of the kind of kids that actually work with LEOs on those stings. I expect that they're all socially malignant christian conservatives that are planning on a career in LE. You know a lot of them just want some quick cash, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2014/11/12/nevada-moves-to-legalize-marijuana/ Nevada's signatures are submitted. Unless the legislators choose to adopt it (unlikely at best), it gets put to the voters in 2016. The first, but almost certainly not the last, to qualify for a marijuana vote in two years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
AYC posted:http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2014/11/12/nevada-moves-to-legalize-marijuana/ Came here to post this; was really surprised about Nevada, since they have to submit their signatures way long before the election, and their campaign had been pretty quiet as far as I knew. But if they do indeed pass muster with enough valid signatures, that's more outstanding news. Completely cleaning up all three legalizing votes (despite missing FL medical) I'm sure gives a lot of momentum, and early good news on ballot petitions can't hurt either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Kinda optimistic, but a credible possibility; title says it all: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...3f2e_story.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:New York isn't as liberal as you'd think, especially the state. It's the old-school Rockefeller "liberals" that control most of the Democratic party. NYC is super 'liberal' if you ignore the segregation, the starkest wealth-inequality in the nation, the literal peasantry vs landowners, NIMBY bullshit e.g. (the citibikes), outright racist policies like stop-and-frisk, and the NYPD as one of the most militarized police forces in the country, yea sure. I wish the myth of Democrat = Liberal would loving die already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
It seems like everyone in this thread supports legalizing weed, so let's try something different to get our craniums pumpin': What are the best arguments you can think of AGAINST legalizing weed? Our opponents are not all Bible-thumping fanatics; some have legitimate public health/safety concerns. So, let's try to see things from their perspective. What are some potential problems you can think of?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
It will take jobs away from drug dealers who aren't able to get a real job, taking away the only reliable source of cash inflow for poor neighborhoods and perhaps making some of them resort to violent crime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
AYC posted:It seems like everyone in this thread supports legalizing weed, so let's try something different to get our craniums pumpin': We've already gone over it in this thread. The biggest issues are a lack of standardized testing & labeling, especially on consumables. Biggest issue is people who have never experienced pot before chomping down on a whole nuclear-bomb brownie, thinking it didn't work because they don't feel anything after 20 minutes, chomping down another, then having a 'bad time'. It's a lot easier to have a mind-bending experience than it is on alcohol because on booze you have a faster uptake + straight liquor is very difficult to drink for beginners.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:NYC is super 'liberal' if you ignore the segregation, the starkest wealth-inequality in the nation, the literal peasantry vs landowners, NIMBY bullshit e.g. (the citibikes), outright racist policies like stop-and-frisk, and the NYPD as one of the most militarized police forces in the country, yea sure. To be honest, NYC has been run as a billionaire's fief for the past ~13 years. None of this is surprising in that context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
AYC posted:It seems like everyone in this thread supports legalizing weed, so let's try something different to get our craniums pumpin': It takes away a reason for the police to to hassle minorities
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
If we're trying to be honest, here's the better version of the above: Drugs provide probable cause to investigate people who are often committing other crimes, lowering the overall crime rate by allowing police to investigate them. Marijuana dealing is correlated with possession of illegal firearms, dealing more dangerous drugs, and gang membership, and the smell of marijuana provides the PC necessary to search those individuals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:If we're trying to be honest, here's the better version of the above: The problem is none of those are good things, in fact eliminating all of those things is better. So it's not a compelling argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:The problem is none of those are good things, in fact eliminating all of those things is better. So it's not a compelling argument. What do you mean? It's good to stop prosecuting people for illegal firearms? I think those are bad regardless of the above argument's merit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
AYC posted:What are the best arguments you can think of AGAINST legalizing weed? There are a number of industries that would suffer as a result of legalization, and the commerce resulting from legalization may not necessarily be larger than the industry surrounding prohibition - putting someone in forced treatment or prison generates far more revenue than any amount of marijuana that person might buy. Even if the economy as a whole suffers as a result, the costs of the system today are a combination of (1) diluted heavily because they are being paid through taxation and (2) paid acutely by people who are largely marginalized and apolitical. Pushing through legalization would take money out of the pockets of respectable, important people with the ears of other respectable, important people. Are you anti-business or something? Don't you know that it's free market entrepreneurs like outsourced probationary service providers that make America the great and freedom loving country that it is today, not some hippies who are probably using the food stamps that YOU pay for so they can sit around their moms' basements smoking reefer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:The problem is none of those are good things, in fact eliminating all of those things is better. So it's not a compelling argument. In the more concise form I posted, it's highly compelling to all the people who keep voting "no" on legalization. That's their foremost concern whether they realize it or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
AYC posted:It seems like everyone in this thread supports legalizing weed, so let's try something different to get our craniums pumpin': It won't be as cool anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
It allows cartels to transfer from an outlaw gang that murders people to a legal corporation that murders people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
If I own a property in DC, and the law is enacted, and I have tenets living in that property who want to grow marijuana, is there any legal mechanism by which I can say "I will not rent to you if you grow marijuana"? Additionally, if I have executed an existing lease with such tenets for a period of time, in advance of the law being a reality, and the lease makes no mention of this, is there any mechanism by which I could evict people who are growing weed? (e: this is hypothetical; I own no such property, and even if I did, would not really give a poo poo if weed was being grown there unless it was a fire trap).
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:If I own a property in DC, and the law is enacted, and I have tenets living in that property who want to grow marijuana, is there any legal mechanism by which I can say "I will not rent to you if you grow marijuana"? Additionally, if I have executed an existing lease with such tenets for a period of time, in advance of the law being a reality, and the lease makes no mention of this, is there any mechanism by which I could evict people who are growing weed? So you're a tenant that wants to grow weed and you're worried about your landlord kicking you out?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
KillHour posted:So you're a tenant that wants to grow weed and you're worried about your landlord kicking you out? They can always fall back on federal law (Controlled Substances Act) and forbid weed smoking in the apartment. Here in California all the UCs forbid weed smoking and possession on campus and in resident housing based on federal law, as do most apartment complexes in college towns (including mine). Basically because it's still federally illegal, it's up to the landlord.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:In the more concise form I posted, it's highly compelling to all the people who keep voting "no" on legalization. That's their foremost concern whether they realize it or not. Are you implying that anyone who votes against marijuana legalization does so because of racism?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
AYC posted:Are you implying that anyone who votes against marijuana legalization does so because of racism? Anyone who has no problem with tobacco and alcohol being legal, yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
AYC posted:Are you implying that anyone who votes against marijuana legalization does so because of racism? Is there some other reason it was made illegal to begin with? It was Harry Anslinger conjuring up visions of black people and Mexicans hopped up on marijuana, raping and killing. You can dress it up however you like but when David Brooks mewls about it, that's what he's afraid of. There are people who are opposed to legalization for other reasons, but that's the biggie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
A popular argument against weed is just simply that they're worried that large-scale acceptance of marijuana is going to necessarily lead to a bunch of people routinely overindulging. A lot of folks literally envision this as a society-changing effect, like tens of thousands of people in semi-permanent couchlock, who at best will be cliche stoners who just hang out going duuuuuuude all the time and never have any useful hobbies or activities, and at worst are unable to hold down jobs and end up going on welfare permanently, trading their food stamps for more bud, etc. Add to this the idea that underage kids will be doing same, and you get an apocalyptic vision that stirs folks to vote against weed. I don't think it's anywhere the issue they imagine, I know productive and successful folks who smoke weed, and most utter deadbeats who are inclined to smoke weed are already doing it plus other drugs, or at least swilling shitloads of beer. But these folks believe that Eagle Scouts and the like will be lured into drugs by their being made more accessible and socially acceptable. On the last point, it vaguely reminds me of the weird stance some anti-gay commentators make, that they gay lifestyle is so fun and rewarding that it's only our sternest social pressure keeping teenage boys from buttramming each other constantly, so we must smash down any suggestion that it's anything less than ghastly lest most of America suddenly decide it's easier and more fun than what they're doing now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is there some other reason it was made illegal to begin with? It was Harry Anslinger conjuring up visions of black people and Mexicans hopped up on marijuana, raping and killing. You can dress it up however you like but when David Brooks mewls about it, that's what he's afraid of. There are people who are opposed to legalization for other reasons, but that's the biggie. I don't think that's fair. It's true that, historically, marijuana criminalization efforts were fueled by racist depictions of Hispanic and Black people smoking it and attacking white families or somesuch nonsense. These days, however, pretty much everyone agrees that racial disparities in drug arrests are a big problem, and groups who oppose legalization (like SAM) still don't want it to result in long sentences of jail time. Looking at the anti-legalization campaign in Alaska, it seemed primarily focused on the concerns that marijuana would become a "big industry" that would target children. Racist anti-weed people obviously exist, but IMO most arguments against it these days have to do with public safety and/or health concerns. They're wrong, of course, but that doesn't mean they're all a bunch of racist right-wing cranks (even if quite a few are).
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
AYC posted:These days, however, pretty much everyone agrees that racial disparities in drug arrests are a big problem You think so?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You think so? *Most people. Decriminalization polls much better than legalization, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You think so? At least nominally, I think so. Not about drug arrests, but the Fair Sentencing Act passed by unanimous consent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
AYC posted:Basically because it's still federally illegal, it's up to the landlord. You don't even need that, you are well within your rights to ban (for example) perfectly legal tobacco smoking in a rental property. I don't even know if you need justification to write your preferences into a lease as long as you're not discriminating against a protected class, but even if you do, making some noise about smell, potential water damage, etc should easily cover that. AYC posted:These days, however, pretty much everyone agrees that racial disparities in drug arrests are a big problem. Yeah, when you put it in academic terms no one wants to come off as a racist. But get a few beers in a middle-aged white dude and see if he's really all that upset that the cops have another excuse to hassle those thugs from the other side of town. Or see if he's troubled that one of said thugs is serving years for non-violent drug charges, since that same white dude dude just knows the guy from the other side of town was really out committing all sorts of crimes and getting off for technicalities so it's good the cops could bust him for that joint. You're not going to question the judgment of the hero cops putting their lives on the line to keep you safe, are you? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
(double post)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
AYC posted:groups who oppose legalization (like SAM) still don't want it to result in long sentences of jail time. They don't support imprisoning users but they still support giving them a criminal record. Their website claims that they don't but I don't see how that's possible to prevent without legalization. I live in a state with "decriminalization" but I've still suffered negative consequences from my petty misdemeanor marijuana ticket. Luckily I'm a middle class white guy who can pay 2 grand for an expungement, not everyone is so lucky.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
SAM is a group lead by Kevin Sabet who want a kinder, gentler prohibition. It emerged because career prohibitionists can see the writing on the wall and still want to remain relevant in a post prohibition world. Whatever a kinder gentler prohibition looks like is whatever Kevin Sabet says it looks like at the time he says it so of course it is going to be contradictory and irrational. Their goal is not to make the world a better place, just forstall the end of prohibition for their own personal gain. Ethan Nadlemann from the Drug Policy Alliance recently told Sabet on CNN that "I will enjoy watching you become a footnote in history": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sjfFnY_J2S0 KingEup fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
I follow US legalization process very closely because I'm pretty sure that when you guys prove it is not the end of the world and show the tax revenue for it, many countries will change their stances on it. Sadly we are not yet there, in Switzerland weed is still illegal but decriminalized, you only get fined if you get caught with less than 10g of weed. There was a project to test the "Cannabis club" thing that started in Spain, where some groups of people are allowed to open clubs for adults where you can buy some small amount of weed for personal use etc.. Today this project was axed thanks to the extreme right wing fuckwit party UDC who proposed for this to stay illegal. There are a few other cities that are thinking about testing this way of doing things but I think UDC is trying to ban such thing at the federal level  By the way, UDC are the fuckers who are world known for posters such as this: Oh noes, brown hands are stealing Swiss passports  Kick the filthy blacksheeps out of Switzerland!  Do not allow Islamists to build hundreds of minarets in Switzerland (There were 3 total minarets in Switzerland when this initiative was started, and passed )
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
Le0 posted:Kick the filthy blacksheeps out of Switzerland! I don't know how anyone could look at that image and not feel sorry for the poor little black sheep getting picked on by the white sheep 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
KingEup posted:SAM is a group lead by Kevin Sabet who want a kinder, gentler prohibition. It emerged because career prohibitionists can see the writing on the wall and still want to remain relevant in a post prohibition world. Whatever a kinder gentler prohibition looks like is whatever Kevin Sabet says it looks like at the time he says it so of course it is going to be contradictory and irrational. Their goal is not to make the world a better place, just forstall the end of prohibition for their own personal gain. As far as I can tell, they say they support a kinder, gentler Prohibition but their actions disprove even that. If they're equally opposed to criminalizing users as they are to legalization, where were they during the fight for decriminalization in NYC, DC or Philadelphia? I heard nary a peep from them on such common-sense measures. They spend all of their money and political capital fighting against legalization, not against criminalization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:What do you mean? It's good to stop prosecuting people for illegal firearms? I think those are bad regardless of the above argument's merit. It's the mechanism of enforcement that is the problem. In the trivial contextless application of the law, prosecuting people for "illegal" stuff is fine. The problem is when you abuse due process in order to find the evidence in the first place. Basically giving up rights in the name of enforcing the law isn't a desirable outcome, and even less desirable is violating the rights of an already marginalized group.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
The argument of "It's probably a lot more harmful than we all realize," is the most common argument I've heard among anti-legalization people who aren't willfully ignorant. Someone else hit the nail on the head when they said that anti-pot types fear a nation full of braindead layabouts smoking weed (most of them refuse to believe for a second that weed isn't addictive because let me tell you about this totally lazy stoner I once knew...) much more than they get a kick out of throwing undesirables in the slammer. It doesn't help whenever a major news outlet comes up with a "Smoking reduces IQ" newsbit (which is usually bullshit), these same people can go "See? SEE?" and double down on their belief that weed is a dangerous drug and must remain banned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:As far as I can tell, they say they support a kinder, gentler Prohibition but their actions disprove even that. If they're equally opposed to criminalizing users as they are to legalization, where were they during the fight for decriminalization in NYC, DC or Philadelphia? I heard nary a peep from them on such common-sense measures. They spend all of their money and political capital fighting against legalization, not against criminalization. That's because SAM is Kevin Sabet's sweet enriching lobbying gig after ten years of being a gigantic square for pay for various government agencies. It's not intended to actually do anything in terms of political impact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
rscott posted:Anyone who has no problem with tobacco and alcohol being legal, yes No, that's not true at all, there are lots of reasons people might not support legalization that have nothing to do with racism. The vast majority of people do not connect alcohol and tobacco to "drugs". Ask someone if they do drugs, the vast majority will say no even if they drink from time to time. Plus dare and other nonsense. Look people, dog whistle and all that are real things. But to say that someone automatically is racist because of x is a loving stupid and terrible thing to say. Calling racism on every single thing regardless of the evidence is supposed to be a republican stereotype of democrats, jesus. The world does not boil down to a single issue, people's beliefs are a complex combination of a lot of different things, opinions about race one of them. Like holy poo poo if you can't think of any other reason people would be against it other than they are racist you aren't thinking very hard. tsa fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:42
|
|
