US government: "Marijuana laws will still be enforced even if prop 19 passes"

[Saucycarpdog]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101016/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legalization_justice

Basically it says this;

As of October 2010, even if the proposition is passed, the sale of marijuana will remain illegal under federal law via the Controlled Substances Act

This sounds like a huge blow to people who wanted it legalized.

 

[Gindil]

This means that state troopers will catch you but not the local police. It's taking a little bit of the teeth out of this law, but not all of it.

Furthermore, while it's sad, I'm amazed that there's so many in high places that can't see the aggregate damage that the Controlled Substances Act has enabled.

 

[tomtom94]

And you are surprised?

National government > local government.

 

[Gindil]

IT really just means that local government will not be seeking out and prosecuting small timers in possession of miniscule amounts of pot.

The feds will just be going after big time growers and the ones who run drugs cross state borders for the most part.

The Feds kind of have to say this otherwise the fed law on drugs loses all its meaning in the other 49 states.

TBH, after 40 years of the ban on hard drugs, this really isn't working. There are a number of people [http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php] that have the statistics to prove that legalization of drugs can solve a LOT of problems that the ban incurred.

Drug cartels lose money. Regulation ensures safety. People can get help for drug addictions. Less discrimination based on racial stereotypes to meet quotas. And let's not forget that OD deaths, will become non existent.

I'm fairly certain the good will outweigh any bad but the government doesn't seem to think so.

 

[jaybeeL]

The 2010 election season in California has a large issues. Proposition 19 has a lot to do with the debate. I read this here: California Prop 19 pulls together strange, green bedfellows [http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/11/01/california-prop-19/]. The Regulate, Control and Tax Marijuana Act, Proposition 19 on the CA ballot, is up for a vote. These are the basic arguments about California's Prop 19.

 

[SonicWaffle]

As of October 2010, even if the proposition is passed, the sale of marijuana will remain illegal under federal law via the Controlled Substances Act

Only the sale? So it's fine to grow it, smoke it, and give it away for free, but selling it is going to land you in trouble?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

And let's not forget that OD deaths, will become non existent.

While I'm not inclined to disagree with your entire post, I must do so with this particular point. Alcohol, a legal drug in all 50 states, is often consumed to the point of alcohol poisoning that leads to deaths. I'm not inclined to believe it would be any different with drugs much lower lethal doses.

 

[Wintermoot]

that,s weird and kind of stupid if it where to be legalized it should be illigeal to use right?

 

[Gindil]

And let's not forget that OD deaths, will become non existent.

While I'm not inclined to disagree with your entire post, I must do so with this particular point. Alcohol, a legal drug in all 50 states, is often consumed to the point of alcohol poisoning that leads to deaths. I'm not inclined to believe it would be any different with drugs much lower lethal doses.

There's a number of variables we have to look at with alcohol however. First, we place the age for drinking up out of the reach of those that we consider adults in the US. Think about this, you can die for your country, but you can't learn to legally drink until 3 years later. It's why a lot of teens are drinking in college dorms than other more social places where they can learn better lessons in management. Regarding older people, it's probably more a habit than anything else. But now I'm going off tangent.

I believe that Leap's explanation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsk8R_j5zzg#t=28m42s] of drug use, and comparisons to other countries that have legalized drugs shows the flaws in the enforcement policy put forth by Nixon.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

And let's not forget that OD deaths, will become non existent.

While I'm not inclined to disagree with your entire post, I must do so with this particular point. Alcohol, a legal drug in all 50 states, is often consumed to the point of alcohol poisoning that leads to deaths. I'm not inclined to believe it would be any different with drugs much lower lethal doses.

There's a number of variables we have to look at with alcohol however. First, we place the age for drinking up out of the reach of those that we consider adults in the US. Think about this, you can die for your country, but you can't learn to legally drink until 3 years later. It's why a lot of teens are drinking in college dorms than other more social places where they can learn better lessons in management. Regarding older people, it's probably more a habit than anything else. But now I'm going off tangent.

I believe that Leap's explanation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsk8R_j5zzg#t=28m42s] of drug use, and comparisons to other countries that have legalized drugs shows the flaws in the enforcement policy put forth by Nixon.

That does not remotely address my point, which was simply that legalization of a drug that can be fatal if a certain dosage is surpassed is not likely to result in the sudden stop of all deaths related to overdosing on said drug. It might reduce those deaths but it would not eliminate them entirely. That was my only point.

 

[Snotnarok]

Government: The cigarette companies give us too much in taxes to make weed legal.

Seriously it should be legal, and this is coming from someone who has no interest in weed and has never even touched a joint.

 

[Gindil]

And let's not forget that OD deaths, will become non existent.

While I'm not inclined to disagree with your entire post, I must do so with this particular point. Alcohol, a legal drug in all 50 states, is often consumed to the point of alcohol poisoning that leads to deaths. I'm not inclined to believe it would be any different with drugs much lower lethal doses.

There's a number of variables we have to look at with alcohol however. First, we place the age for drinking up out of the reach of those that we consider adults in the US. Think about this, you can die for your country, but you can't learn to legally drink until 3 years later. It's why a lot of teens are drinking in college dorms than other more social places where they can learn better lessons in management. Regarding older people, it's probably more a habit than anything else. But now I'm going off tangent.

I believe that Leap's explanation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsk8R_j5zzg#t=28m42s] of drug use, and comparisons to other countries that have legalized drugs shows the flaws in the enforcement policy put forth by Nixon.

That does not remotely address my point, which was simply that legalization of a drug that can be fatal if a certain dosage is surpassed is not likely to result in the sudden stop of all deaths related to overdosing on said drug. It might reduce those deaths but it would not eliminate them entirely. That was my only point.

Again, LEAP's explanation does quite a lot to explain this point specifically.

They say that 1.3% of the American population is addicted to drugs. This number has been constant since the 60s and 70s.

They discuss what has happened with decriminalization as well as legalization in other countries. Compare that with the US making overdosing quite dangerous. The logic is that people aren't worried about medical attention if someone takes too much of a drug. Rather, they're worried about being put in jail for being around Joe Schmoe who has overdosed. Also, within the minutes that I linked, they discuss exactly that with Sweden and Amsterdam who have low usage of drugs even though they're legalized.

Also, if we're looking at certain dosages, let's be reasonable. You can take too many aspirin and kill yourself. As I've recently learned, anything can be a medicine or a poison depending on the dosage.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Again, LEAP's explanation does quite a lot to explain this point specifically.

They say that 1.3% of the American population is addicted to drugs. This number has been constant since the 60s and 70s.

They discuss what has happened with decriminalization as well as legalization in other countries. Compare that with the US making overdosing quite dangerous. The logic is that people aren't worried about medical attention if someone takes too much of a drug. Rather, they're worried about being put in jail for being around Joe Schmoe who has overdosed. Also, within the minutes that I linked, they discuss exactly that with Sweden and Amsterdam who have low usage of drugs even though they're legalized.

Also, if we're looking at certain dosages, let's be reasonable. You can take too many aspirin and kill yourself. As I've recently learned, anything can be a medicine or a poison depending on the dosage.

He addresses it and even makes an argument for deaths by OD being reduced (in some cases fairly dramatically). But a reduction in OD's by 70% does not mean they go away entirely.

Again, I'm not arguing that legalizing these things is going to somehow be worse than keeping them criminalized. I'm simply arguing that there is absolutely nothing that indicates the problem of death by overdose will not go away entirely. That is they key here: I do not agree with the conclusion you present on the number of OD deaths. You say that that the number would be 0. I'm saying it would be non-zero. I even agree that the number will almost certainly be less than the number before hand.

 

[Cuddly Knife]

@ Eclectric - You can't die from smoking large amounts of weed. You'll just fall asleep from being torched off your ass, and that's only if you're not doing anything. Legalizing weed will not raise the death count. Now alcohol, people die from it all the time from OD, or drunk driving, and such. Maybe lightweights would get too high, drive, and then crash, but I've never seen that happen, and I've been smoking and driving with people for at least fifteen years.

 

[Gindil]

He addresses it and even makes an argument for deaths by OD being reduced (in some cases fairly dramatically). But a reduction in OD's by 70% does not mean they go away entirely.

Again, I'm not arguing that legalizing these things is going to somehow be worse than keeping them criminalized. I'm simply arguing that there is absolutely nothing that indicates the problem of death by overdose will not go away entirely. That is they key here: I do not agree with the conclusion you present on the number of OD deaths. You say that that the number would be 0. I'm saying it would be non-zero. I even agree that the number will almost certainly be less than the number before hand.

I know that smaller countries will have stats saying it's close to 0, meaning more people are being treated and not ostracized.

When I said non-existant, I'm not saying that there will be NO drug overdose deaths in the forseeable future. Rather, based on this data, we'll have the problem under control to the point that people don't have to hide out for treatment. More or less, the problems can be fixed before it comes to that ultimate final conclusion.

 

[Last Valiance]

Nixon banned hard drugs. Nixon is evil. Therefore, drugs are not evil. Discuss.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

He addresses it and even makes an argument for deaths by OD being reduced (in some cases fairly dramatically). But a reduction in OD's by 70% does not mean they go away entirely.

Again, I'm not arguing that legalizing these things is going to somehow be worse than keeping them criminalized. I'm simply arguing that there is absolutely nothing that indicates the problem of death by overdose will not go away entirely. That is they key here: I do not agree with the conclusion you present on the number of OD deaths. You say that that the number would be 0. I'm saying it would be non-zero. I even agree that the number will almost certainly be less than the number before hand.

I know that smaller countries will have stats saying it's close to 0, meaning more people are being treated and not ostracized.

When I said non-existant, I'm not saying that there will be NO drug overdose deaths in the forseeable future. Rather, based on this data, we'll have the problem under control to the point that people don't have to hide out for treatment. More or less, the problems can be fixed before it comes to that ultimate final conclusion.

First, because in some nations the legalization of a particular drug resulted in no overdose deaths proves nothing important when, in other nations, it simply results in a reduction.
These statistics make a decent argument that deaths due to OD's would be reduced, certainly but that is the full extent of their power in this case. And, as I said, I tend to agree with this notion.

However, it was precisely your use of the phrase "non-existant" that I suppose lead to this argument in the first place because that is precisely the same as saying that a non zero death toll would be reduced to a death toll of zero! As such, it seems we have gone a very long way to simply realize that we were in agreement over the content of the argument because we were assigning different definitions to a key term

 

[Atmos Duality]

As of October 2010, even if the proposition is passed, the sale of marijuana will remain illegal under federal law via the Controlled Substances Act

Only the sale? So it's fine to grow it, smoke it, and give it away for free, but selling it is going to land you in trouble?

Sounds like Cigarettes and Alcohol if you ask me.

Doesn't bother me either way; if you want to smoke yourself stupid, go right ahead.