Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grakelin]

Poor co-ordination? Too many politicians on drugs? Ties with the drug lords over in Mexico? I don't really know. I'd say if they really wanted to put things in the right direction, there needs to be more help for people using the drugs, instead of waiting for them to buy their required drug fix, and throwing them in jail for things they didn't necessarily want to continue.

Politicians don't buy drugs from Juan down at the corner. They don't need to have people selling it on the street in order to have access to it. Naivety abound!

[smigenboger]

Hence the 'I don't know'. Do you know?

[Grakelin]

Because the American government is actually autonomically weak (this is on purpose, it supports Democracy) and does not actually have the magic power to crush anything in the country that it does not like. That is why women and blacks are allowed to vote and organized crime still exists.

[nil]

Started because of simple overt racism (google anslinger), continued because it helps keep the hippies cowed, the blacks in prison, and the cops and prisons well-funded (google "private prison").  There's an entire federal department that would cease to exist if the drug war ends; it openly campaigns against drug law liberalization.  Finally, there's also a lot of old people who bought into a lot of really over-the-top propaganda back in the day who continue to vote.

[smigenboger]

I see, so in order to fight the war on drugs, we have to go back in time and rewrite history since the 60's. It's going to take a while to get these drugs off the streets.

[nil]

I see, so in order to fight the war on drugs, we have to go back in time and rewrite history since the 60's. It's going to take a while to get these drugs off the streets.

No, we just have to wait for everyone born before the baby-boom to die.  When that happens you'll have a majority in favor of marijuana decrim nation-wide, and many states with a majority in favor of outright legalization.  Once we do that and the world doesn't end, we can start working on some of the other softer drugs, which the ultimate goal being the destruction of the market for the nastiest, most inherently harmful drugs because everyone is using cheaper, legal, and less harmful counterparts instead.

And apologies for the US-centrism, but given that we've bullied most of the world into going along with our policies since forever, change pretty much has to start here.

[Duuvian]

Do you guys think once pot is legalized that large corporations should be allowed to sell it? Or should ways be thought of to keep it in the hands of small entrepreneurs? Perhaps a firm individual limit that would apply to individuals AND to corporations. Perhaps allow every person over a certain age to grow up to a certain reasonable amount of poundage. That way corporations couldn't mass produce it without hiring an equivalent amount of workers to keep up with the poundage, while still allowing family farms and small producers to produce a surplus to sell on the market to people who can't be bothered to strike the earth, at a price the government could theoretically regulate by changing the individual limit to whatever way affects supply to the desired outcome. It would also be fair to the Republicans, since if they manage to elect a majority they could outlaw it simply by setting the individual limit to 0 pounds, or as high as the corporations demand of them. The problem is that it would also be fair to a more liberal point of view, so I can't see Republicans going for it at first, until it had been in effect for a few years and the more successful growers are able to lobby them.

[Josephus]

Poor co-ordination? Too many politicians on drugs? Ties with the drug lords over in Mexico? I don't really know. I'd say if they really wanted to put things in the right direction, there needs to be more help for people using the drugs, instead of waiting for them to buy their required drug fix, and throwing them in jail for things they didn't necessarily want to continue.

Politicians don't buy drugs from Juan down at the corner. They don't need to have people selling it on the street in order to have access to it. Naivety abound!

Speak for yourself, man, Juan's got some high-class shit.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Man just let anyone grow it, but you can't sell/trade it unless you have a company and a license. That's how we do alcohol here in WA, US.

Although here you need a license to produce distilled liquor. So if it varied by state we'd probably be stricter than elsewhere and not allow unlicensed growing.

Aside from the dumb morality police argument, it's a legitimate concern that people aren't adulterating their liquor. So it's more of an industry regulation thing. That said, I think here it's mostly just that the state taxes it, and everyone drinks, so it's a moneymaker.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think that if it is to be legalized, corporations shouldn't be allowed to sell it at all. Only proprietorships and partnerships. The same should apply to tobbaco, and any other recreational drugs. Giving an entity with virtualy unlimited funds permission to mass-produce things that can be addictive(in the case of tobbaco) or that can induce submission in a user( in the case of pot). Now yes, I know that there isn't any proof that pot could be used to keep the masses dumb and pliable, but judging the behavior of...err... certain individuals I know seems to indicate it is true.

[lordnincompoop]

I see, so in order to fight the war on drugs, we have to go back in time and rewrite history since the 60's. It's going to take a while to get these drugs off the streets.

No, we just have to wait for everyone born before the baby-boom to die.  When that happens you'll have a majority in favor of marijuana decrim nation-wide, and many states with a majority in favor of outright legalization.  Once we do that and the world doesn't end, we can start working on some of the other softer drugs, which the ultimate goal being the destruction of the market for the nastiest, most inherently harmful drugs because everyone is using cheaper, legal, and less harmful counterparts instead.

And apologies for the US-centrism, but given that we've bullied most of the world into going along with our policies since forever, change pretty much has to start here.

lolwut?

[Footkerchief]

And apologies for the US-centrism, but given that we've bullied most of the world into going along with our policies since forever, change pretty much has to start here.

lolwut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Latin_American_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

[fenrif]

I think that if it is to be legalized, corporations shouldn't be allowed to sell it at all. Only proprietorships and partnerships. The same should apply to tobbaco, and any other recreational drugs. Giving an entity with virtualy unlimited funds permission to mass-produce things that can be addictive(in the case of tobbaco) or that can induce submission in a user( in the case of pot). Now yes, I know that there isn't any proof that pot could be used to keep the masses dumb and pliable, but judging the behavior of...err... certain individuals I know seems to indicate it is true.

Corperations wouldn't sell it. Theres no money to be made selling pot if it's legal. It's a plant that anyone can grow in a copboard or wardrobe or attic or whatever. You aren't going to go down to the shops and plonk down 20 quid for a few grams when you can grow ounces of it yourself for basically free.

Even if not everyone bothers to grow it themselves, there'll be enough people growing that it'll work out cheaper to just thow your friend some cash and get them to do all the work for you.

Though now that I've typed that I realise that people will pay outrageous amounts for water... So I guess I'm probobly overestimating the masses.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In the U.S.A, at least, people are conditioned to go for the convienant option. Even if you are getting an inferior and mass produced product, Corporate given convenince will win out, as this is what we are trained to do. Mantianing plants is not convenient. Corporations have effectively unlimited money, and as such can up the conveniance of any particular product to such a high level that only those who have broken or never been given convienance training will ignore this quantity for quality. This is shown in almost every product in the U.S.A. This is the reason we have such a large debt to China. This is the spawning point for a lot of our problems. We certainly don't need to add corporations pushing drugs into the mix, even more than they already have.

[nil]

I see, so in order to fight the war on drugs, we have to go back in time and rewrite history since the 60's. It's going to take a while to get these drugs off the streets.

No, we just have to wait for everyone born before the baby-boom to die.  When that happens you'll have a majority in favor of marijuana decrim nation-wide, and many states with a majority in favor of outright legalization.  Once we do that and the world doesn't end, we can start working on some of the other softer drugs, which the ultimate goal being the destruction of the market for the nastiest, most inherently harmful drugs because everyone is using cheaper, legal, and less harmful counterparts instead.

And apologies for the US-centrism, but given that we've bullied most of the world into going along with our policies since forever, change pretty much has to start here.

lolwut?

What Footkerchief said, plus more specifically the US being the driving force behind every international drug prohibition treaty, especially w/r/t marijuana.

edit for a couple examples:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/200/ganjacommission.shtml

"The US administration opposes the decriminalization of marijuana use," embassy spokesman Michael Koplovsky told the Gleaner the day after the report was released. Then he threatened Jamaica if it went ahead despite US opposition. "The US government will consider Jamaica's adherence to its commitments under the 1988 UN Drug Convention when making its determination under the annual narcotics certification review."

Certification is an annual stamp of approval unilaterally placed on countries by the United States if it determines that they are adequately complying with US drug war objectives. Widely loathed in Latin America, where it is viewed as an arrogant American imposition, the certification law cuts off aid to countries that fail US standards and instructs US representatives at international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, to vote against loan packages for such countries.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/434/nomexico.shtml

Lame-duck Mexican President Vicente Fox abruptly changed course Wednesday, sending back to the congress a drug decriminalization bill that only the day before his spokesman said he would sign. The move against the bill passed by the Mexican Senate last Friday came after heavy pressure from the United States, including a Monday ambassadorial meeting in Washington and a Wednesday statement from the US Embassy in Mexico City urging the Mexicans to rethink the bill.