Colorado Legalizes Weed for Recreational Use

[Harry Dresden]

No. Punishment does if the punishment is severe enough.

yea like be-headings....right Katz?.....

For drug users??????

As long as they are eliminated, the method doesn't make any difference. I really agree most with the methods employed by the Chinese. They treat drug use as a medical condition. Users are sent to work rehabilitation at a labor camp and given medical support. The sentences is fixed at three years. If, after three such sentences, the user continues to use, they are incurable and kept under such medical care for life.

That is a very humane method of dealing with drug users and makes them into productive citizens.

yea im sure 3 years in a "labor" camp for smoking Pot is going to make the guy a productive citizen....

 

[martybegan]

Well, I understand what you are arguing now and I did not get that before. But while I do believe it should be illegal to sell drugs or alcohol to minors, I do not believe it's the job of government to raise them for us. So I am "happy" in terms of understanding, but I am not happy in terms of government doing anything but pursuing actual crimes. Which does include going after adults who provide drugs or alcohol to minors.

A differing approach to achive the same result. However we are currently seeing the failure of systems designed to go after the provider, and not the user. Its the reason we are discussing legalizing some drugs at all, because trying to kill the supply without killing the demand is usually doomed to failure, as per Alcohol prohibition.

Plus, I am not talking any jail time here, there is nothing wrong with some young delinquents cleaning roads, building houses, or serving in a seniors home for 1/2 a year due to thier own use of things they shouldnt be using.

The problem with going after the user is that you are going after someone who has not harmed anyone but themselves. Unless you believe government owns our bodies, there is no basis for that.

The government may not own our bodies, but we can regulate commerce. This is why we typically go after the supplier instead of the demander. Its nicer consitutionally, however less practical, as when there is demand, there will ALWAYS be supply, and the criminal enterprise that comes along with said demand/supply if the product is deemed illegal. Fighting said supply requires massive use of police forces, which to me is a greater threat to our freedoms than a more limited police force getting a judge issued warrant to determine if an illegal substance is in your system. If you punish the demand enough to lower it, you remove the need for a supply.

 

[kaz]

A differing approach to achive the same result. However we are currently seeing the failure of systems designed to go after the provider, and not the user. Its the reason we are discussing legalizing some drugs at all, because trying to kill the supply without killing the demand is usually doomed to failure, as per Alcohol prohibition.

Plus, I am not talking any jail time here, there is nothing wrong with some young delinquents cleaning roads, building houses, or serving in a seniors home for 1/2 a year due to thier own use of things they shouldnt be using.

The problem with going after the user is that you are going after someone who has not harmed anyone but themselves. Unless you believe government owns our bodies, there is no basis for that.

The government may not own our bodies, but we can regulate commerce. This is why we typically go after the supplier instead of the demander. Its nicer consitutionally, however less practical, as when there is demand, there will ALWAYS be supply, and the criminal enterprise that comes along with said demand/supply if the product is deemed illegal. Fighting said supply requires massive use of police forces, which to me is a greater threat to our freedoms than a more limited police force getting a judge issued warrant to determine if an illegal substance is in your system. If you punish the demand enough to lower it, you remove the need for a supply.

It's all fruit of the poisoned tree. When government tries to regulate what we can do with our own bodies, no one respects it. Then as you say there will be supply to get the money. The KKK was done in mostly by racist white males who still thought lynching and attacking black people was wrong, so they cooperated with the FBI. Almost no one turns in someone who just decides to put drugs in their own bodies.

Furthermore, since on this issue the law is not worthy of respect, we are training people to not respect the laws in other ways. I don't do drugs, but it has nothing to do with that they are illegal, and yet I have no respect for the law over this. The law should be worthy of respect.

 

[martybegan]

The problem with going after the user is that you are going after someone who has not harmed anyone but themselves. Unless you believe government owns our bodies, there is no basis for that.

The government may not own our bodies, but we can regulate commerce. This is why we typically go after the supplier instead of the demander. Its nicer consitutionally, however less practical, as when there is demand, there will ALWAYS be supply, and the criminal enterprise that comes along with said demand/supply if the product is deemed illegal. Fighting said supply requires massive use of police forces, which to me is a greater threat to our freedoms than a more limited police force getting a judge issued warrant to determine if an illegal substance is in your system. If you punish the demand enough to lower it, you remove the need for a supply.

It's all fruit of the poisoned tree. When government tries to regulate what we can do with our own bodies, no one respects it. Then as you say there will be supply to get the money. The KKK was done in mostly by racist white males who still thought lynching and attacking black people was wrong, so they cooperated with the FBI. Almost no one turns in someone who just decides to put drugs in their own bodies.

Furthermore, since on this issue the law is not worthy of respect, we are training people to not respect the laws in other ways. I don't do drugs, but it has nothing to do with that they are illegal, and yet I have no respect for the law over this. The law should be worthy of respect.

I agree with you, however excessive drug use does have a negative impact on society, and society does have a right to regulate it, espeically if the abuser has an impact on society. Today drug laws do foster a disrespect for the law, same as laws against 16+ oz sodas, salt shakers, and other nannyist ideals.

There has to be some way however, to remove people from society who cannot "play nice" with drugs.

My proposal would be to legalize them all, however if you get caught with a non-violent crime while on a drug, you get mandatory treatment, and one more chance to use said drug. Second violation, more treatment, and you are now banned from ever using it again. if you get caught using it, its off to a nice camp where u can use all you want, but you can't get out. (Hotel California if you will) unless you go to another camp and stay clean in it for 5 years.

Drug use becomes a privilidge. Mess it up, and you lose said privilidge.

 

[Yurt]

i seriously hope this brings down the cartels and gangs etc that sell weed illegally. also, i think in the end run, it will bring down the price of weed.

go colorado go

 

[Yurt]

The government may not own our bodies, but we can regulate commerce. This is why we typically go after the supplier instead of the demander. Its nicer consitutionally, however less practical, as when there is demand, there will ALWAYS be supply, and the criminal enterprise that comes along with said demand/supply if the product is deemed illegal. Fighting said supply requires massive use of police forces, which to me is a greater threat to our freedoms than a more limited police force getting a judge issued warrant to determine if an illegal substance is in your system. If you punish the demand enough to lower it, you remove the need for a supply.

It's all fruit of the poisoned tree. When government tries to regulate what we can do with our own bodies, no one respects it. Then as you say there will be supply to get the money. The KKK was done in mostly by racist white males who still thought lynching and attacking black people was wrong, so they cooperated with the FBI. Almost no one turns in someone who just decides to put drugs in their own bodies.

Furthermore, since on this issue the law is not worthy of respect, we are training people to not respect the laws in other ways. I don't do drugs, but it has nothing to do with that they are illegal, and yet I have no respect for the law over this. The law should be worthy of respect.

I agree with you, however excessive drug use does have a negative impact on society, and society does have a right to regulate it, espeically if the abuser has an impact on society. Today drug laws do foster a disrespect for the law, same as laws against 16+ oz sodas, salt shakers, and other nannyist ideals.

There has to be some way however, to remove people from society who cannot "play nice" with drugs.

My proposal would be to legalize them all, however if you get caught with a non-violent crime while on a drug, you get mandatory treatment, and one more chance to use said drug. Second violation, more treatment, and you are now banned from ever using it again. if you get caught using it, its off to a nice camp where u can use all you want, but you can't get out. (Hotel California if you will) unless you go to another camp and stay clean in it for 5 years.

Drug use becomes a privilidge. Mess it up, and you lose said privilidge.

that is a good point, never considered it.

 

[Yurt]

The government may not own our bodies, but we can regulate commerce. This is why we typically go after the supplier instead of the demander. Its nicer consitutionally, however less practical, as when there is demand, there will ALWAYS be supply, and the criminal enterprise that comes along with said demand/supply if the product is deemed illegal. Fighting said supply requires massive use of police forces, which to me is a greater threat to our freedoms than a more limited police force getting a judge issued warrant to determine if an illegal substance is in your system. If you punish the demand enough to lower it, you remove the need for a supply.

It's all fruit of the poisoned tree. When government tries to regulate what we can do with our own bodies, no one respects it. Then as you say there will be supply to get the money. The KKK was done in mostly by racist white males who still thought lynching and attacking black people was wrong, so they cooperated with the FBI. Almost no one turns in someone who just decides to put drugs in their own bodies.

Furthermore, since on this issue the law is not worthy of respect, we are training people to not respect the laws in other ways. I don't do drugs, but it has nothing to do with that they are illegal, and yet I have no respect for the law over this. The law should be worthy of respect.

I agree with you, however excessive drug use does have a negative impact on society, and society does have a right to regulate it, espeically if the abuser has an impact on society. Today drug laws do foster a disrespect for the law, same as laws against 16+ oz sodas, salt shakers, and other nannyist ideals.

There has to be some way however, to remove people from society who cannot "play nice" with drugs.

My proposal would be to legalize them all, however if you get caught with a non-violent crime while on a drug, you get mandatory treatment, and one more chance to use said drug. Second violation, more treatment, and you are now banned from ever using it again. if you get caught using it, its off to a nice camp where u can use all you want, but you can't get out. (Hotel California if you will) unless you go to another camp and stay clean in it for 5 years.

Drug use becomes a privilidge. Mess it up, and you lose said privilidge.

can his post be a sticky?

this really sums up the entire "drug" issue. you will be in trouble with the law if you abuse alcohol, such as a DUI, you can also be in trouble with the law if you abuse legal prescription drugs. i actually was against marty's stance, but after reading his stance in this post, i've come to believe that he may very well be correct. prison time doesn't change drug use. making drugs illegal has not changed drug use. so why not follow marty's philosophy?

 

[percysunshine]

i seriously hope this brings down the cartels and gangs etc that sell weed illegally. also, i think in the end run, it will bring down the price of weed.

go colorado go

Dude. Colorado is charging $500 per ounce. It is being marketed to rich liberal 1%ers.

The common people will get their stuff from the cartels at $50 per ounce.

 

[Yurt]

i seriously hope this brings down the cartels and gangs etc that sell weed illegally. also, i think in the end run, it will bring down the price of weed.

go colorado go

Dude. Colorado is charging $500 per ounce. It is being marketed to rich liberal 1%ers.

The common people will get their stuff from the cartels at $50 per ounce.

1. do you have proof of CO prices? that is higher than the purest CA medicinal.

2. bullshit. there is no such thing as $50/oz weed unless you're buying 2% weed and 98% manure. there is a difference between brick weed and real weed. that said....if CO is in fact charging that much for an OZ, then it has to be top shelf and if so, then legalizing it one state, of course will not drop the price overall. my point was that the nation has to legalize it. one state will have no impact. i didn't make that clear in my post.

 

[martybegan]

i seriously hope this brings down the cartels and gangs etc that sell weed illegally. also, i think in the end run, it will bring down the price of weed.

go colorado go

Dude. Colorado is charging $500 per ounce. It is being marketed to rich liberal 1%ers.

The common people will get their stuff from the cartels at $50 per ounce.

1. do you have proof of CO prices? that is higher than the purest CA medicinal.

2. bullshit. there is no such thing as $50/oz weed unless you're buying 2% weed and 98% manure. there is a difference between brick weed and real weed. that said....if CO is in fact charging that much for an OZ, then it has to be top shelf and if so, then legalizing it one state, of course will not drop the price overall. my point was that the nation has to legalize it. one state will have no impact. i didn't make that clear in my post.

Its also very early on, and there are not many legal sellers. The market will move the price down. Right not it is inflated as a novelty.

 

[Yurt]

Dude. Colorado is charging $500 per ounce. It is being marketed to rich liberal 1%ers.

The common people will get their stuff from the cartels at $50 per ounce.

1. do you have proof of CO prices? that is higher than the purest CA medicinal.

2. bullshit. there is no such thing as $50/oz weed unless you're buying 2% weed and 98% manure. there is a difference between brick weed and real weed. that said....if CO is in fact charging that much for an OZ, then it has to be top shelf and if so, then legalizing it one state, of course will not drop the price overall. my point was that the nation has to legalize it. one state will have no impact. i didn't make that clear in my post.

Its also very early on, and there are not many legal sellers. The market will move the price down. Right not it is inflated as a novelty.

could be, but didn't CO already have medicinal? why charge higher prices when more people can buy the product? i wonder because, i can't imagine prices going higher in CA if we legalized marijuana for everyone.

you could be right though, a sort of gold/pot rush is going on.

 

[percysunshine]

i seriously hope this brings down the cartels and gangs etc that sell weed illegally. also, i think in the end run, it will bring down the price of weed.

go colorado go

Dude. Colorado is charging $500 per ounce. It is being marketed to rich liberal 1%ers.

The common people will get their stuff from the cartels at $50 per ounce.

1. do you have proof of CO prices? that is higher than the purest CA medicinal.

2. bullshit. there is no such thing as $50/oz weed unless you're buying 2% weed and 98% manure. there is a difference between brick weed and real weed. that said....if CO is in fact charging that much for an OZ, then it has to be top shelf and if so, then legalizing it one state, of course will not drop the price overall. my point was that the nation has to legalize it. one state will have no impact. i didn't make that clear in my post.

1. Iraq War vet makes Colorado's first pot purchase

2. I have been out of the market for many years. $50 was a guess. Still, black markets exist with all government price controlled commodities.

 

[martybegan]

1. do you have proof of CO prices? that is higher than the purest CA medicinal.

2. bullshit. there is no such thing as $50/oz weed unless you're buying 2% weed and 98% manure. there is a difference between brick weed and real weed. that said....if CO is in fact charging that much for an OZ, then it has to be top shelf and if so, then legalizing it one state, of course will not drop the price overall. my point was that the nation has to legalize it. one state will have no impact. i didn't make that clear in my post.

Its also very early on, and there are not many legal sellers. The market will move the price down. Right not it is inflated as a novelty.

could be, but didn't CO already have medicinal? why charge higher prices when more people can buy the product? i wonder because, i can't imagine prices going higher in CA if we legalized marijuana for everyone.

you could be right though, a sort of gold/pot rush is going on.

Partially because the taxes are now higher, and partially because they are now allowed to jazz up the pot, thus making it branded.

Also I'm not sure if the medicinal people and the retail people can be the same.

 

[kaz]

I agree with you, however excessive drug use does have a negative impact on society, and society does have a right to regulate it, espeically if the abuser has an impact on society.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

- If you mean that people on drugs commit crimes, like stealing to buy them, driving under the influence, that sort of thing, then those things are already crimes and they should be held accountable for their crimes. The reason they committed them, in this case drugs, is irrelevant. The crime is the issue.

- If you mean that people don't work as hard, are not as responsive as parents, that sort of thing. While I agree with you on your statement, it's not a job for government.

Neither of those scenarios gives government the right to regulate the drugs themselves.

 

[martybegan]

I agree with you, however excessive drug use does have a negative impact on society, and society does have a right to regulate it, espeically if the abuser has an impact on society.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

- If you mean that people on drugs commit crimes, like stealing to buy them, driving under the influence, that sort of thing, then those things are already crimes and they should be held accountable for their crimes. The reason they committed them, in this case drugs, is irrelevant. The crime is the issue.

- If you mean that people don't work as hard, are not as responsive as parents, that sort of thing. While I agree with you on your statement, it's not a job for government.

Neither of those scenarios gives government the right to regulate the drugs themselves.

The issue becomes the government supports them when they can't hold a job, be supportive parents etc. We can't legalize it and also allow those abusing it to continue to use the safety net, or the net will become unsupportable economically.

Hence the camps.

 

[kaz]

I agree with you, however excessive drug use does have a negative impact on society, and society does have a right to regulate it, espeically if the abuser has an impact on society.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

- If you mean that people on drugs commit crimes, like stealing to buy them, driving under the influence, that sort of thing, then those things are already crimes and they should be held accountable for their crimes. The reason they committed them, in this case drugs, is irrelevant. The crime is the issue.

- If you mean that people don't work as hard, are not as responsive as parents, that sort of thing. While I agree with you on your statement, it's not a job for government.

Neither of those scenarios gives government the right to regulate the drugs themselves.

The issue becomes the government supports them when they can't hold a job, be supportive parents etc. We can't legalize it and also allow those abusing it to continue to use the safety net, or the net will become unsupportable economically.

Hence the camps.

So we're going to regulate drugs because some people abuse it instead of holding the people accountable who abuse it? Isn't that the same justification as what has lead us to the path of destruction we're on now?

 

[Yurt]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

- If you mean that people on drugs commit crimes, like stealing to buy them, driving under the influence, that sort of thing, then those things are already crimes and they should be held accountable for their crimes. The reason they committed them, in this case drugs, is irrelevant. The crime is the issue.

- If you mean that people don't work as hard, are not as responsive as parents, that sort of thing. While I agree with you on your statement, it's not a job for government.

Neither of those scenarios gives government the right to regulate the drugs themselves.

The issue becomes the government supports them when they can't hold a job, be supportive parents etc. We can't legalize it and also allow those abusing it to continue to use the safety net, or the net will become unsupportable economically.

Hence the camps.

So we're going to regulate drugs because some people abuse it instead of holding the people accountable who abuse it? Isn't that the same justification as what has lead us to the path of destruction we're on now?

what?

are you for no regulation? of anything? just asking.

 

[Yurt]

Dude. Colorado is charging $500 per ounce. It is being marketed to rich liberal 1%ers.

The common people will get their stuff from the cartels at $50 per ounce.

1. do you have proof of CO prices? that is higher than the purest CA medicinal.

2. bullshit. there is no such thing as $50/oz weed unless you're buying 2% weed and 98% manure. there is a difference between brick weed and real weed. that said....if CO is in fact charging that much for an OZ, then it has to be top shelf and if so, then legalizing it one state, of course will not drop the price overall. my point was that the nation has to legalize it. one state will have no impact. i didn't make that clear in my post.

1. Iraq War vet makes Colorado's first pot purchase

2. I have been out of the market for many years. $50 was a guess. Still, black markets exist with all government price controlled commodities.

thanks for the reply and the link. i read through the link and didn't see the $500/oz price. i think you're basing it off the of 1/8th price. the pricing doesn't work that way. you pay more for smaller amounts, just as you do any food or drink. my hunch is the price is around $350-400 per ounce.

you may think i'm nitpicking, but seriously, i've never seen legal/medicinal weed for $500/oz. anyway, don't want to derail this thread over prices, so i give you the floor.

 

[martybegan]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

- If you mean that people on drugs commit crimes, like stealing to buy them, driving under the influence, that sort of thing, then those things are already crimes and they should be held accountable for their crimes. The reason they committed them, in this case drugs, is irrelevant. The crime is the issue.

- If you mean that people don't work as hard, are not as responsive as parents, that sort of thing. While I agree with you on your statement, it's not a job for government.

Neither of those scenarios gives government the right to regulate the drugs themselves.

The issue becomes the government supports them when they can't hold a job, be supportive parents etc. We can't legalize it and also allow those abusing it to continue to use the safety net, or the net will become unsupportable economically.

Hence the camps.

So we're going to regulate drugs because some people abuse it instead of holding the people accountable who abuse it? Isn't that the same justification as what has lead us to the path of destruction we're on now?

We regulate it by punishing those who can't handle it. If you can hold down a job, support your family, and contribute to society feel free to blaze up, pop up, snort up or inject up. However if you do things like commit crimes, or have to go on government support, then you either clean up (which will be provided) or do yourself in somewhere nice, foresty, and away from everyone else.

 

[Yurt]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

- If you mean that people on drugs commit crimes, like stealing to buy them, driving under the influence, that sort of thing, then those things are already crimes and they should be held accountable for their crimes. The reason they committed them, in this case drugs, is irrelevant. The crime is the issue.

- If you mean that people don't work as hard, are not as responsive as parents, that sort of thing. While I agree with you on your statement, it's not a job for government.

Neither of those scenarios gives government the right to regulate the drugs themselves.

The issue becomes the government supports them when they can't hold a job, be supportive parents etc. We can't legalize it and also allow those abusing it to continue to use the safety net, or the net will become unsupportable economically.

Hence the camps.

So we're going to regulate drugs because some people abuse it instead of holding the people accountable who abuse it? Isn't that the same justification as what has lead us to the path of destruction we're on now?

do you believe that we should have no regulation over any product or service?