Colorado Legalizes Weed for Recreational Use

[kaz]

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.

Of drugs, no, no regulation. As I said though if you commit crimes on drugs then you are responsible for those crimes. I am good with drug testing for welfare. But government has no business regulating what people do with their own bodies.

 

[kaz]

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.

I agree with that, but it's your use of the word "regulation" that's confusing me then. Usually "regulation" refers to placing restriction on the distribution, product, that sort of thing. If you sniff glue and stab someone, you committed murder, most people don't consider that "regulating" glue.

 

[kaz]

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?

One area that I differ from harder core libertarians is that I believe that government requiring reasonable disclosure about the products and services we buy to be a legitimate function of government. So for example, if you go to the supermarket, it's reasonable to require companies to disclose their food handling practices. I would put no requirement what those practices be, only that they be accurately disclosed so consumers can decide for themselves. But no, as long as disclosure is honest, then there should be no restrictions on the products themselves.

Ask yourself, when do you trust a lawyer who's in political office instructing a bureaucrat to make your choices for you more than you trust making your own choices? The correct answer is never, and that's how frequently it should be done.

Another way to do it would be to have a "government approved" label. It would be a crime to put government approved if it is not. That way, if you do trust government, they can still make your choice for you.

 

[Yurt]

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?

One area that I differ from harder core libertarians is that I believe that government requiring reasonable disclosure about the products and services we buy to be a legitimate function of government. So for example, if you go to the supermarket, it's reasonable to require companies to disclose their food handling practices. I would put no requirement what those practices be, only that they be accurately disclosed so consumers can decide for themselves. But no, as long as disclosure is honest, then there should be no restrictions on the products themselves.

Ask yourself, when do you trust a lawyer who's in political office instructing a bureaucrat to make your choices for you more than you trust making your own choices? The correct answer is never, and that's how frequently it should be done.

Another way to do it would be to have a "government approved" label. It would be a crime to put government approved if it is not. That way, if you do trust government, they can still make your choice for you.

interesting POV. my first question, before i respond, would be: how do you enforce your rules?

that said. if every producer was simply required to disclose, do you not think that some would either evade or disclose so poorly that the poor would eat...well...poorly? i've been told i am more libertarian than any other party, but in this, if i am to be libertarian to avoid government standards on food, then i must disagree. that said, i do see your point.

why i disagree is, simple disclosure means nothing to the masses. when it comes to a nation's food source, it must be secure and clean. disclosure is not enough. if people want to eat at the local X stand that is not regulated. go for it. but not for food sold in grocery stores.

i've eaten at local X local food stands and some are damn good. and if they are regulated, they will have to close. on that is where i see your point. but, that is my choice to go to a local stand. on a national grocery level, we need regulation on basic food items. IMO.

 

[Yurt]

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.

Of drugs, no, no regulation. As I said though if you commit crimes on drugs then you are responsible for those crimes. I am good with drug testing for welfare. But government has no business regulating what people do with their own bodies.

again, an interesting POV. so basically, you stand for the proposition that any mind state, altered or not, is legal, so long as you don't commit a crime...is that right?

 

[Jarlaxle]

The Walking Dead will be a documentary.

Get those kids hooked young, you have an addict for life.

You have to be 21 to buy.

Yeh. And you have to be a legal age to get ciggs too. Do you think that stops the kids now days? Drugs are just as easy for them to get their hands on it.

Its almost like if your a minor...the law doesn't apply to you.

When my brother was in high school, he would have had a harder time getting cigarettes or alcohol than pot, cocaine, heroin, or meth!

 

[Katzndogz]

A 2 year old has already been poisoned. Yayyyyy pot.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Making it illegal does not stop kids either.

Making it legal should make it harder for kids to get thier hands on it (unless thier parents are stoners and let thier kids do it). If the legal supply takes over most of the market, the remaining underage customer base simply isnt big enough to supply enough profit to those who would continue it underground.

That being said, if the legal market is so expensive due to taxation that the underground market still has a large enough of age customer base, then any of the effects I listed above do not happen.

Stoner parents GIVE pot to their five year olds. Stoners poison their own pets with pot. Stoners are stoners, they don't stop being stoners because they have kids. They make sure the kids are stoners too.

And your proof is...? Wait, I forgot: you don't do "proof", kitty. You prefer pulling things from your rectum!

 

[Jarlaxle]

No. Punishment does if the punishment is severe enough.

Did you beat yours daily?

I really didn't have to. My son never drank, smoked or used any kind of drug. He was kicked out of school because he refused to "socialize" with drug users. My son was seriously conservative long before I was conservative.

Every parent of a stoner believed that at some point!

Beating might be appropriate in the beginning. If drug use continues, knee capping might have to be employed.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand...yer still a psycho.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Colorado legalized weed for recreational use. This is horrible! One of those deviants said they were going to get a bag and, I quote "watch stupid movies and play video games". These menaces to society must be stopped! They are a danger to us all and snacks everywhere!

And no doubt you readily identify with this guy...

 

[Katzndogz]

Get a bag, watch stupid movies and hold out their hands for the next welfare check. You can't expect potheads to go without. Greedy rich people who work should support them.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Stupid statement!

You specialize in those, kitty!

 

[oreo]

The Walking Dead will be a documentary.

Get those kids hooked young, you have an addict for life.

Marijuana is NOT addictive. Those drugs that are addictive are alcohol and of course cigarettes--you know those LEGAL drugs.

Marijuana has never yet put anyone into the emergency room for an overdose.

The number one drug problem in the United States today, causing addiction and which kills people is actually LEGAL Prescription pain killers.

This nation still spends hundreds of millions a year on law enforcement--court costs--and incarceration of non-violent people because they got caught smoking a joint.


This nation has spent a trillion dollars over the last decades on the war on marijuana which hasn't even put a dent into the flow of it.

I am 3rd generation native of Colorado and am a fiscal conservative and I am proud to be in the state that put their thumb in the eye of the Federal Government when it comes to marijuana. BTW--The gold on our capital building has not melted off because of legalization.

 

[KNB]

Marijuana is obviously not a threat to American society for the simple fact that we used it to help stop the Holocaust.

Without the legalization of "Marihuana" in 1942, the US military would not have had the equipment that it needed to fight the Axis of Evil (marijuana was actually legalized to fight against evil, keep that in mind the next time you vote). Without the US entering the war, the outcome would have been very different. What would the US be like today if the US Navy had lost the battle of Midway because the ships didn't have any rigging? What if Japan had taken Hawaii? Or even California? Or what if Germany had won because there wasn't a D-Day?

The world as you know it exists today because of the legalization of "Marihuana". It was essential to the US' victory, hence the title of the 1942 USDA film, Hemp For Victory.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1oFcgLfgV0]Hemp For Victory (1942) - YouTube[/ame]

In some parts of America, students in 4H clubs were given highschool credits for growing up to two acres each for the war effort. You can also see some teenagers working in the hemp mills in Hemp For Victory.

If America can legalize "Marihuana" to support our troops during World War II, then we should be able to legalize "Marihuana" to support our troops in every war, even the war on drugs.

 

[Mr. H.]

Get a bag, watch stupid movies and hold out their hands for the next welfare check. You can't expect potheads to go without. Greedy rich people who work should support them.

Not everyone who smokes weed, even on a fairly regular basis, is a pothead.
It spans all ages, races, income levels, education levels.

 

[Political Junky]

Clarence Thomas got a seat on the Supreme Court after it was revealed that he had smoked pot.

 

[oreo]

Get a bag, watch stupid movies and hold out their hands for the next welfare check. You can't expect potheads to go without. Greedy rich people who work should support them.

Not everyone who smokes weed, even on a fairly regular basis, is a pothead.
It spans all ages, races, income levels, education levels.

Agreed I know lots of professionals that are closet pot smokers. They simply prefer it over alcohol. Cheech and Chon movies really did this herb a dis-service. Along with the Federal Government's propaganda--mostly paid for by law enforcement and the pharmacutical lobbyists in this country--the war on marijuana began--and after a trillion dollars spent on this war over the decades they didn't even put a dent into it.

Colorado has taken the initiative to put the violent Mexican drug cartels out of business. We now have more jobs--and a much larger tax base going into our state treasury.

 

[dannyboys]

Longmont 2-Year-Old Tests Positive For Pot « CBS Denver
Start them young. By voting age they'll be true blue 'Stoner-Socialists' understanding their only hope to survive is to make sure there is always a Socialist ready to hand them 'free-stuff' in return for their vote. The LIBs have every Black 'on the plantation' after all.
Ya. That's what made America great.

 

[initforme]

If one is for less gov't intervention then they are FOR this. Can't have it both ways. Less gov't intervention and more freedom. Legalizing fits in both categories.

 

[KNB]

Marijuana was legalized during World War II and America didn't become Socialist, so would the right wing care to rephrase their argument?

Marijuana was legalized during World War II and Americans didn't turn into raving, lazy, lunatic zombies, so would the right wing care to rephrase their argument?

Marijuana was legalized during World War II and American unemployment went down because Americans were making American products from American industrial hemp, so would the right wing care to rephrase their argument?