Marijuana poll

[AtomicCEO]

Im not really pushing a "Think of the children" agenda here. What age are you suggesting is the legal age for smoking Josh Gordon ? The same as alcohol ? Thats really the age group I am thinking of. I just envision the Abercrombie and Fitch crowd smoking up a storm because it will become very trendy if legalized and I dont see much good coming out of it.

 

Explain to me the downside that necessitates the war on drugs and costly criminalization, because I really don't see what you're getting at here.

 

I don't believe silly hyperbole bolsters your point any.

 

I know... a cop smoking a joint while on duty? That was ridiculous. Thanks for having the balls to call out McBoog.

[yo mama]

You guys are missing the point. Alcohol shouldn't be legal either. It isn't good for any of us. We know this. There isn't an alcoholic in the world that thinks alcohol is actually good for them, and helps in any way whatsoever. Even those of us that love to drink know the effects are terrible. Pot isn't any different. It impares judgement and makes people unmotivated to better themselves or their community. They want to come home and smoke pot and sit on the couch. Not exactly conducive to a productive society. I think if people choose to smoke pot, we should continue to look down upon them, rather than the other way around.

No, I think you're missing the point. You don't get to impose your personal values on other people in a free society. If you want to be entitled to your own opinion, you've got to let others be entitled to theirs. Furthermore, your sweeping generalizations and self-righteousness haven't contributed anything useful to this discussion. Go live your life. Let me live mine.

[DMD]

I have no dog in this hunt so I am not taking any sides, but for all intents and purposes you have all discussed this rationally and respectfully. I have actually read the entire thread and there were a couple of things never addressed well that I wondered about:

 

1. How many people actually serve time for Josh Gordon? If it is a misdemeanor, isn't that just a fine?

 

2. If usuage patterns do not change, as has been suggested by some proponents of legalization, then wouldn't the primary group of users remain the 18 - 21 year old smokers who would still be illegal? Unless adults (21+) were driving under the influence (whatever measure that is), they would propbably just smoke in their house anyway so LEO's would see no change in their role either way - right? If it was made illegal for <21, then they would have no less enforcement problems and almost certainly more since it would be more available to under 21 year olds just because adults could buy it for them.

 

3. If everyone says that it is so easy to get, then what does it matter about illegality other than doing it in public? I say this about some of you that say you would only want to do it in your home.

 

4. If Josh Gordon is legal, then is hashish as well? Also, I would guess that cigarettes and alcohol must pass some FDA kind of quality control (?) so would Josh Gordon as well ? To my very limited knowledge, there is a wide diversity of potency in the types of Josh Gordon. Would that equate to proof in alcohol? Would it end up needing to be tested to see how much THC is in it to be legal or not or would anything go?

 

5. Do you think there would be "Josh Gordon bars" popping up everywhere? How would that coexist with most cities going no smoking?

 

I am just interested in these questions and honestly have little knowledge about the subject other than what I am trying to glean here. I have no problem with it being illegal and just wonder what it would be like if it was not.

[detlef]

I have no dog in this hunt so I am not taking any sides, but for all intents and purposes you have all discussed this rationally and respectfully. I have actually read the entire thread and there were a couple of things never addressed well that I wondered about:

 

1. How many people actually serve time for Josh Gordon? If it is a misdemeanor, isn't that just a fine?

 

2. If usuage patterns do not change, as has been suggested by some proponents of legalization, then wouldn't the primary group of users remain the 18 - 21 year old smokers who would still be illegal? Unless adults (21+) were driving under the influence (whatever measure that is), they would propbably just smoke in their house anyway so LEO's would see no change in their role either way - right? If it was made illegal for <21, then they would have no less enforcement problems and almost certainly more since it would be more available to under 21 year olds just because adults could buy it for them.

 

3. If everyone says that it is so easy to get, then what does it matter about illegality other than doing it in public? I say this about some of you that say you would only want to do it in your home.

 

4. If Josh Gordon is legal, then is hashish as well? Also, I would guess that cigarettes and alcohol must pass some FDA kind of quality control (?) so would Josh Gordon as well ? To my very limited knowledge, there is a wide diversity of potency in the types of Josh Gordon. Would that equate to proof in alcohol? Would it end up needing to be tested to see how much THC is in it to be legal or not or would anything go?

 

5. Do you think there would be "Josh Gordon bars" popping up everywhere? How would that coexist with most cities going no smoking?

 

I am just interested in these questions and honestly have little knowledge about the subject other than what I am trying to glean here. I have no problem with it being illegal and just wonder what it would be like if it was not.

All fine questions...

 

First off, I will freely admit that I know of nobody who's served any time for possession in small enough amounts that they're obviously not selling. That said, even though there would still be some growing it on the sly, law enforcement efforts would go way down.

 

2. 18-21 is not a fair age group. I would say it's more like 18-30 or so. That is, the same age group that bars and clubs thrive upon. There are plenty of people above 21 who smoke plenty of dope. Essentially wives and kids shut that habit down.

 

3. The legality matters because of cases like what swammi brings up. Some dude who's taking care of business who would love to get high and watch a movie from time to time without fear of what might happen if he were to be caught. It's that simple. Sure, it's easy to get, but as long as it's illegal, there's a stigma attached.

 

4. I'm sure there's ways of measuring THC content and I'm sure someone would bother. Of course, does it really matter that much? I have 6 gins on my back bar that range from 80-100 proof. Does anyone who orders any of them know which is which? What about the wines I have that range from 8% to 16%? Sure, they're labeled (usually incorrectly, I might add) but the only time anyone looks is when I'm being presented them and I think one tastes "hot".

 

5. Honestly, that all depends on the level to which it is "allowed". Yes, I would think that was a major conflict with movements to outlaw smoking in bars, which btw, despite the fact that I don't smoke, I think is totally lame. If it were up to me, there'd be bars where you could smoke, bars where you couldn't, and those of us who didn't want to go home smelling like crap would go to those where you couldn't.

Edited March 17, 2009 by detlef

[Missoula Griz]

I

3. If everyone says that it is so easy to get, then what does it matter about illegality other than doing it in public? I say this about some of you that say you would only want to do it in your home.

 

Good pot costs a lot of money. A quarter ounce of good green Josh Gordon will run you 80 bucks or more in my neighborhood. By legalizing it, the cost would go down substantially.

[WaterMan]

Good pot costs a lot of money. A quarter ounce of good green Josh Gordon will run you 80 bucks or more in my neighborhood. By legalizing it, the cost would go down substantially.

 

Moonshiners made a killing when alcohol was illegal.

 

Now the government gets their share.

 

Why not do the same? There's alot of money that goes unaccounted for that the government could take a piece of to pay back China and Sons with.

[whomper]

Explain to me the downside that necessitates the war on drugs and costly criminalization, because I really don't see what you're getting at here.

 

 

Easy there Coy Rogers. I see a big upswing in pot use amongst the age bracket of 21-25. In my head the first thing that comes to mind is these people, who arent good drivers to begin with, will be stoned on the road. Take money out of the equation and tell me you think its a good idea to legalize a drug. I know you crafted the Poll so people admitted that pot isnt on the same plain as heroine but it is still a drug. If pot was legalized I certainly wouldnt cry about it. I would probably spark one up like many former potheads would I assume.

 

The fact that it is illegal stabilizes it. If it was legal I personally see a big upswing . It clouds your thinking and saps your motivation . Personally i dont think we need that

[WaterMan]

The fact that it is illegal stabilizes it. If it was legal I personally see a big upswing . It clouds your thinking and saps your motivation . Personally i dont think we need that

 

And alcohol is just water with no effects.

[yo mama]

1. How many people actually serve time for Josh Gordon? If it is a misdemeanor, isn't that just a fine?

Interestingly, the people who do real time for Josh Gordon aren't the users, but the growers and dealers. Some of those people are true criminals (illegal Mexican gangs, etc). However, many domestic growers/vendors are either: (1) struggling American farmers looking for any way to make their mortgage; or (2) growers who have a state license to do so. However, mandatory 10-year federal MINIMUM sentences crush these folks if they get caught by the feds. But yeah, in places like California possession and/or use of small quantities is effectively not punished by state law enforcement, unless the cops need an excuse to haul some jackass in, people are driving while impaired, or the minor offense is being tacked on to a longer list of more meaningful criminal charges.

 

Thankfully, Obama's administration recently said it won't pursue active criminal investigations where: (1) the State's have legalized use (e.g., for legitimate medicinal use); and (2) assuming the actors involved are in compliance with the State's requirements. The Bush administration continued classifying pot as having LESS medicinal value that PCP, if you can believe that. The Bush administration's policy was also to preempt state law where it conflicted with the Federal policy on the illegality of Josh Gordon. That never made sense to me, but it looks like the Obama administration has reversed course in a manner that respects state rights... with respect to this issue at least. Maybe I'm just a crazy liberal, but I'd like to see that same mentality extended to most matters of personal choice and individual liberties.

Edited March 17, 2009 by yo mama

[whomper]

And alcohol is just water with no effects.

 

 

Alcohol is legal already.

[whomper]

Its funny because by no means am I an anti drug crusader. If it was legalized I would lose no sleep . I love to party and in certain situations still do it. I see where people are coming from as far as being able to tax it and the money side of it. I just think pot has its controlled niche and always has had it. Legalizing it would be a hugh story and make it trendy and I just think I wouldnt like the aura of it.

 

There was the real authentic woodtstock and their was the woodstock sponsored by Pepsi. leglizing pot would turn it into the woodstock sponsored by pepsi

[westvirginia]

Easy there Coy Rogers. I see a big upswing in pot use amongst the age bracket of 21-25. In my head the first thing that comes to mind is these people, who arent good drivers to begin with, will be stoned on the road. Take money out of the equation and tell me you think its a good idea to legalize a drug. I know you crafted the Poll so people admitted that pot isnt on the same plain as heroine but it is still a drug. If pot was legalized I certainly wouldnt cry about it. I would probably spark one up like many former potheads would I assume.

 

The fact that it is illegal stabilizes it. If it was legal I personally see a big upswing . It clouds your thinking and saps your motivation . Personally i dont think we need that

 

See, I don't see it that way. Legal or not, I'd probably never partake. And I'm sure there are many in the same boat, or like you, would do it once a blue moon. I also think it's the height of fallacy that to think legalizing Josh Gordon would give carte-blanche for potheads to drive stoned. Not any more than alcohol does, at any rate.

[whomper]

See, I don't see it that way. Legal or not, I'd probably never partake. And I'm sure there are many in the same boat, or like you, would do it once a blue moon. I also think it's the height of fallacy that to think legalizing Josh Gordon would give carte-blanche for potheads to drive stoned. Not any more than alcohol does, at any rate.

 

 

Not saying it would give them carte blanche. I am just saying it is a numbers game. More people will smoke and the same way people do it with booze (drive) they will do it with Josh Gordon.

Edited March 17, 2009 by whomper

[whomper]

See, I don't see it that way. Legal or not, I'd probably never partake. And I'm sure there are many in the same boat, or like you, would do it once a blue moon.

 

 

I agree with you. This is what makes me believe the uptick will be with young people

[Azazello1313]

However, mandatory 10-year federal MINIMUM sentences crush these folks if they get caught by the feds.

 

under the federal sentencing guidelines, without enhancers, a mandatory 10 year minimum sentence for Josh Gordon doesn't kick in until you're possessing over a thousand kilos. that is like a ryder truck filled to the brim. link

 

The Bush administration's policy was also to preempt state law where it conflicted with the Federal policy on the illegality of Josh Gordon. That never made sense to me

 

really? do the words "supremacy clause" ring any bells for you?

[yo mama]

under the federal sentencing guidelines, without enhancers, a mandatory 10 year minimum sentence for Josh Gordon doesn't kick in until you're possessing over a thousand kilos. that is like a ryder truck filled to the brim. link

 

 

 

really? do the words "supremacy clause" ring any bells for you?

1. Well, if your a licensed grower/dealer, or a farmer trying to make their mortgage, it isn't uncommon to possess quantities that trigger federal minimums.

 

2. Yes, having finished law school, I have heard of the Supremacy Clause. Perhaps you quit before learning that certain subject matters, namely health and safety, have been traditionally left to the states and are less likely to be the subject of federal preemption. For example, the citizens of California have elected to legalize the medical use of Josh Gordon for cancer patients. The Fed has no problem prescribing pain pills to those same cancer patients. What legitimate policy goal is advanced when the Fed stands in the way of a doctor prescribing that cancer patient a joint instead of a pain pill when both choices are valid under state law? None, in my opinion.

 

Recreational use is obviously a closer call. I guess if you're into big government then you can certainly argue that the Fed should "preempt the field" on any issue. However, a proponent of state's rights and individual freedoms would recognize that the issue of recreational pot use is not akin to the types of issues that traditionally require a unified national policy, like immigration, bankruptcy, patent/trademarks, admiralty, foreign diplomacy, etc. Those are classic cases of where federal preemption is both legal and appropriate: note how none of those topics involve personal/lifestyle choices.

[Azazello1313]

1. Well, if your a licensed grower/dealer, or a farmer trying to make their mortgage, it isn't uncommon to possess quantities that trigger federal minimums.

 

well, they could perhaps try paying their mortgage by growing something other than illegal narcotics by the bushel.

 

2. Yes, having finished law school, I have heard of the Supremacy Clause. Perhaps you quit before learning that certain subject matters, namely health and safety, have been traditionally left to the states and are less likely to be the subject of federal preemption.

 

umm, well there are plenty of areas federal law stays out of. and I agree with you completely that this, like other contentious "health and safety" issues, ought to be left to the states. but where there IS a federal policy that conflicts with a state policy, obviously the federal policy trumps. you seem to think it bizarre that the federal government would actually enforce its own laws. can you point to any other examples where the federal government has routinely abandoned enforcement of its own laws because a state had a conflicting law? as I said, it's usually the other way around, what with federal law being "supreme" and all. also, personally I am more comfortable with the legislative branch changing the laws than I am with the executive brach selectively enforcing them.

[WaterMan]

That's why it's called the United States.

 

States can do what they wish to. If not, welcome to Civil War 2.

[fingfootball]

5. Do you think there would be "Josh Gordon bars" popping up everywhere? How would that coexist with most cities going no smoking?

 

link

 

DutchAmsterdam.nl — First this: On July 1, 2008, a smoking ban will come into effect in all horeca (hotel, restaurant, and catering) businesses in the Netherlands.

The smoking ban also extends to other indoor businesses, including airports, shopping malls, cinemas, sports arenas (but not while a retractable roof is open), discos, nightclubs, other music venues, and so on.

Coffee shops — those Dutch establishments where you primarily go in order to use cannabis — are subject to the same law as well. And, depending on what you smoke, that is both good and bad. More about that in a moment.

 

Designated smoking areas

Restaurants and other so-called ‘hospitality venues’ can set aside designated, enclosed areas where smoking is allowed.

However, in those areas, no service is provided. [Those who joke that, smoking ban or not, that has always been the case... stop it!]

In other words, if you want a drink or something to eat, you have to venture into the smoke-free zone, place your order, and porter it back to the smoking den.

[yo mama]

well, they could perhaps try paying their mortgage by growing something other than illegal narcotics by the bushel.

 

 

 

umm, well there are plenty of areas federal law stays out of. and I agree with you completely that this, like other contentious "health and safety" issues, ought to be left to the states. but where there IS a federal policy that conflicts with a state policy, obviously the federal policy trumps. you seem to think it bizarre that the federal government would actually enforce its own laws. can you point to any other examples where the federal government has routinely abandoned enforcement of its own laws because a state had a conflicting law? as I said, it's usually the other way around, what with federal law being "supreme" and all. also, personally I am more comfortable with the legislative branch changing the laws than I am with the executive brach selectively enforcing them.

1. Come now. If Farmer John could pay the mortgage growing alfalfa, he would. As far as the licensed growers, pot is their crop. California gives them a license to grow.

 

2. The Federal government can write and enforce its own laws. But from a policy perspective, what good comes of the federal law that pot has less medicinal value than PCP?

[Yukon Cornelius]

well, they could perhaps try paying their mortgage by growing something other than illegal narcotics by the bushel.

farmers in Canada are making money growing hemp. you cant grow it here in the states.

[JoJoTheWebToedBoy]

4. If Josh Gordon is legal, then is hashish as well?

5. Do you think there would be "Josh Gordon bars" popping up everywhere? How would that coexist with most cities going no smoking?

 

I hope so.....

[McBoog]

Come on, who is in favor for this?

 

 

 

Rolex watches, Kate Spade handbags, Viagra.... you're talking about premium goods with consumer-perceived differentiation. That's not a valid comparison. Josh Gordon would be closer to a commodity.

 

Nobody would be in favor of open and free use without restrictions. That is my point.

 

I have been involved in border crimes and smuggling as a career for 20 years. If it can be smuggled for a profit, it will be. I am involved in a case where 10 people are going to jail for a minimum of five years for smuggling tainted snow peas and the penalties and asset forfeiture alone will total at least 5 million dollars. THAT is a commodity. This smuggling was facilitated by paperwork and was not hidden in any way.

 

Do not tell me that it won't be smuggled across the border. It will be. To believe otherwise is niave. The violation will be covered by 18 USC 545.

[Azazello1313]

1. Come now. If Farmer John could pay the mortgage growing alfalfa, he would. As far as the licensed growers, pot is their crop. California gives them a license to grow.

 

and federal law says they are criminals. I presume they know this when they decide to grow it. this whole "won't somebody think of the poor farmers" angle just isn't very convincing.

 

2. The Federal government can write and enforce its own laws. But from a policy perspective, what good comes of the federal law that pot has less medicinal value than PCP?

 

on this we agree. but as I said before, I am more comfortable with the legislative branch changing the laws than I am with the executive branch selectively enforcing them.

[AtomicCEO]

3. If everyone says that it is so easy to get, then what does it matter about illegality other than doing it in public? I say this about some of you that say you would only want to do it in your home.

 

Two words: Cash crop

Instead of wasting billions trying to fight Josh Gordon growers, you could create real jobs and real tax revenue for it.

 

Not to mention, I'm not real psyched about the fact that if I buy illegal Josh Gordon, I'm possibly supporting the people who murder and kidnap and kill and torture just over the border in Mexico. Quite frankly, I'd rather just grow a plant.