# What's up with legalizing Marijuana??



## fixitguy (Nov 2, 2010)

Don't make this political, please


I guess I don't understand why all the states are legalizing marijuana. There must be some thing behind the scene that I'm not getting. 
Is it tax revenue?? Get the population all stoned so the government can pass nasty laws/rules?

I guess I'm just wondering what is behind the curtain?? I don't get it


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

It's the revenue, and probably has something to do with the changing opinions of the younger crowd. It's just becoming more socially acceptable.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Revenue and similar to prohibition. It is a big industry, why not get the gov a cut?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

There is no really good reason not to legilize it.

More tax revenue.
Save lots of money sending people to jail for the equivilant of drinking.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

The option of the older crowd is changing, younger crowds have always wanted it legal.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Just like giveing drugs to kids, even hitler was a druggie. Calms people down so that they do not realize what is happening.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Revenue backstop to eroded tax bases is the most likely reason.


----------



## Marinea (Apr 15, 2011)

I can give you a non-cynical answer: it helps with pain.

I had a fiancÃ© with bone cancer. He was on a continuous morphine drip, and it didn't touch his pain. The only thing that helped his pain, and allowed him to keep down some food, was marijuana. He used it when he could until he died.

Was it legal? No. Would I help him get it again? In a heartbeat.

Oh, and a jury in Florida just acquitted a man for growing marijuana after he proved that he had a medical condition that would benefit from it.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

Well, either you own your own body and can do what you want with it....or you don't.

And before anybody jumps in with it, yes, along with that comes responsibility for the cost of repairs. 

You jump off a building and don't die....you better have good insurance or I'd let you sit there on the curb and rot. You smoke (whatever) all your life and get cancer....don't come to the public trough looking for care. Deal with it.
You drive under the influence and wreck, you pay the full cost. Injure or kill someone in the process....death penalty.

Drug laws simply don't work. "Wars" on them don't work. All it does is encourage drug gangs (just like the alcohol gangs of prohibition), finance their distribution, and make a whole industry out of cops, courts and prisons.

All 'for the children' of course.....


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

I only see an upside. There will be fewer people in prison, for certain.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

What's next...legal meth?
It's all gone to heck IMO. Just more taxation, and less representation.
"This is Tully Mars signing off"..._Salty piece of Land_...fun read.

Matt


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Fewer non-violent offenders in prison, a source of tax revenue, undercutting of Mexican drug cartels, and FREEDOM are the main reasons I see for legalization. Kills far fewer people than alcohol or tobacco, thats for sure.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

It was legal up until 1932 I believe. Pharmaceutical companies don't like it when you can grow your own medicine.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

haley1 said:


> The option of the older crowd is changing, younger crowds have always wanted it legal.


hmmm, the older crowd was once the younger crowd and we wanted it legal way back then. I always crack up when the younger crowd thinks they discovered something when it has been around for a long,long time :happy2:


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

It never should have been illegal. Powerful industries made sure it was associated with the "reefer madness" mentality.

Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the CAR ITSELF WAS CONSTRUCTED FROM HEMP! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, 'grown from the soil,' had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel; Popular Mechanics, 1941.

Henry Ford designed the Model T, it was his expectation that ethanol, made from renewable biological materials, would be a major automobile fuel. 

http://www.rense.com/general67/ford.htm


I wonder how different things would be today if we would have followed his vision?
Perhaps we never would have been involved in the middle east and all it's problems


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And now we maybe seeing a new avenue for MJ. And it is the Native Americans growing it on their reservations. One tribe in WI is already trying to see if laws and what laws apply to them in this new venture when the casinos are not doing good or they can't get new ones built.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

I think you should be questioning why it was ever made illegal and prohibited in the first place. It's been less than 100 years ago that it was made illegal and that decision has proven to be a mistake that's long overdue to be overturned and corrected.

Speculating here but I think the reasons it's being made legal in more places is because the outdated reasons it was made illegal are no longer relevant to today's societies, medical fields, resource needs, economies, political atmospheres and world trade. 

If you look at the history and the political / economic reasons why it was first regulated in the 1600's and mandated to be cultivated, then later restricted and made illegal in both USA and Canada shortly after the turn of the 20th century the reasons for prohibiting it are no longer valid in the 21st century. They never were valid and all prohibition did was cause more troubles and set backs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_Canada


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

With GMO advancements, a terminator gene weed could be developed to help eradicate heirloom weed leaving only single generation easily taxable weed as the public option, making the fledgling "farmaceutical " drug provider interests of the 21st century as happy as the government that will tax it.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

It's about time. We all choose our own poison. I think pot is a lot less dangerous then alcohol and clogging the courts with some guy who was caught with a joint is pretty stupid.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

susieneddy said:


> hmmm, the older crowd was once the younger crowd and we wanted it legal way back then. I always crack up when the younger crowd thinks they discovered something when it has been around for a long,long time :happy2:


I was LOLing at that one as well.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

What makes any government feel they are superior to nature, in other word what right do they have to make a plant illegal. What if your community said we like nice lawns not covered in dandelions so now we make them illegal. No government has that right to say a natural growing plant is wrong. Most don't make Jimson weed illegal yet is one of the most powerful hallucinogens available. I alway heard Dupont was one of the companies instrumental in making it illegal, they wanted to promote nylon rope not hemp.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Hemp was a huge crop around the turn of the century, it was not the corp that produced the recreational strain though... I agree with the efforts to legalize it though. As a note, I was a smoker during my younger years but have little to no need of it any longer. 

The prospect of taxing it similar to tobacco would certainly be a cash cow. 

"Yes, I need a roll of stamps, $10 of gas and a pack of them Marijuana Lights, please..."


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Not really all that new a thing If I remember right Alaska decriminalized it back in the 70's


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Alaska did decriminalize it vie the Raven law. This November it has been legalized.
It was put on the ballot via a citizen petition, it was four pages of preregs. Approved by the head of elections...Ltd. gov at the time mead Treadwell. Because I read it I voted against it because....after the first sentence.....TO LEGALIZE MARIJUANA IN THE STATE OF ALASKA....there were pages attached with all the regs that the voter were also agreeing to....most people did not get past the first sentence.

I personal saw...felt that there was a devil in the mess that followed the first sentence.

Well there is our current state legislature is forced to spend so much energy and time to address those pages that the majority of voters did not read and can not remember were attached to the first sentence.

In away they voted in favor of a poorly written ....very misleading ballet measure.

I wish that they just made it legal to transport, trade and sell a max of four oz., and grow six plants.

What was missing in the old deal was the pot fairy, because you could have it only in your home...but getting to your home, even the seeds was filling up the courts and jails.

Personally the conservative...libertarian me was against the ballot measure.

I do not do drugs that is my choice....I have learned that there many people who work and achieve and are stability with positive lifestyles and smoke pot..it was something that took me time to learn that pot is not evil..

People can abuse anything soda, tv,a car,prescription meds....what is abused is not the problem it is the choices that people make that can cause the problem.

Removing freedom to limit choices will never be the solution.

Addressing the behavior and not the tool aids society.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I think that a lot of the money for the pot legalization campaign comes from Doritos and other snack food marketers.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

There was a strong momentum for "decriminilization" back in the 70's. It was an up and coming idea. But the then-president of NORML ran it off the rails when he gave an interview and said the goal was to legalize all drugs, heroin, cocaine, the whole ball of wax. The tide pretty much turned after that, and the "war on drugs" has been waged all these years since, mostly in vain. 

I think MJ is comparable to alcohol, and there's no good reason for it not to be legal. There should be taxpayer money saved on enforcement as well as new tax revenue, and hopefully cut the drug cartels out of the business.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

Awnry Abe said:


> I only see an upside. There will be fewer people in prison, for certain.


You think?

Yes, the dealers won't be in prison, but more access to it will mean more people smoking it - resulting in more Driving Under the Influence cases.

As for the reason for changing it - governments were left out of the private sales - and with governments coffers bankrupt, public sells will give them more tax revenue - so they can give themselves bigger raises and more perks.

That, and public opinion has swung to the other side.

Just wait till government sees the cash coming in. They will be letting prostitution become legal as well.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I simply can not believe that pot being legal will mean more access to it. 

I was the only non pot smoker in my graduating class in the seventies.

Never have I ever been with a person who wanted pot have a problem getting it.....paying for it yep....only money not sources was and is an issue.

Heck.....dumb dumb me could get it if I want to and I have always known where to get .


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Oggie said:


> I think that a lot of the money for the pot legalization campaign comes from Doritos and other snack food marketers.


Oreos and ice cream. They know who butters their bread.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Wlover said:


> There is no really good reason not to legilize it.


You don't consider health to be a really good reason.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

TnAndy said:


> Drug laws simply don't work. "Wars" on them don't work.


The war on tobacco worked.

If tobacco is bad, how can marijuana be good (for the general public)?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> You don't consider health to be a really good reason.


You don't need to smoke it!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> The war on tobacco worked.
> 
> If tobacco is bad, how can marijuana be good (for the general public)?


Really, nobody smokes anymore? Businesses don't legally sell cigarettes? People don't illegally buy and sell cigarettes. It has diminished smoking but has nowhere near eliminated it. As long as there are people there will be people who engage in addictive behaviors. As long as those people exist someone will step in to fill that need. Government can regulate addictive behavior but it can never eliminate it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Wlover said:


> You don't need to smoke it!


You said there was no good reason and I gave you one. 

It has nothing to do with whether I choose to use mj or not. There are health problems associated with using marijuana.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> You said there was no good reason and I gave you one.
> 
> It has nothing to do with whether I choose to use mj or not. There are health problems associated with using marijuana.


There are good reasons to use it FOR YOUR HEALTH. Still health reasons is not a good reason to put people in jail in any scenario I know.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Really, nobody smokes anymore? Businesses don't legally sell cigarettes? People don't illegally buy and sell cigarettes. It has diminished smoking but has nowhere near eliminated it. As long as there are people there will be people who engage in addictive behaviors. As long as those people exist someone will step in to fill that need. Government can regulate addictive behavior but it can never eliminate it.


That has nothing to do with my statement. The war on tobacco was extremely successful.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> That has nothing to do with my statement. The war on tobacco was extremely successful.


Your statement was that the war worked. War is designed by its nature to eliminate the opponent. By that definition the war against smoking has had some success but it has hardly been succesful. If we accept that the ancillary goal of war is to make money it has been more successful. Tobacco companies, anti tobacco groups and governments have all made money from the "war". In that respect it has been even more succesful but none of those involved really want to "win". That would kill the cash cow. My point still stands- as long as there are people there will be people who profit from feeding that addiction and government can never eliminate that. At best government can regulate, offer some controls and even profit through taxation.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Your statement was that the war worked. War is designed by its nature to eliminate the opponent. By that definition the war against smoking has had some success but it has hardly been succesful. If we accept that the ancillary goal of war is to make money it has been more successful. Tobacco companies, anti tobacco groups and governments have all made money from the "war". In that respect it has been even more succesful but none of those involved really want to "win". That would kill the cash cow. My point still stands- as long as there are people there will be people who profit from feeding that addiction and government can never eliminate that. At best government can regulate, offer some controls and even profit through taxation.


Winning a war does not mean eliminating the opponent. We won WWII and did not kill all the enemy. We won Gulf War I and did not kill all the Baathists. Winning a war is more analogous to controlling. You get to a position where you can control the people and environment. You can impose your will on enough of the people that the risk is reduced to a manageable level.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

When the Germans, Italians and Japanese stopped fighting we won the war. They were no longer opponents. To win the war on smoking tobacco you have to eliminate all uses of tobacco. Otherwise your still fighting. Kind of line winning Gulf War I led to Gulf War II which we also "won" which appears to be leading to Gulf War 3.0. You either win a war or you keep fighting which by definition is also war. You can't eliminate addicts. You can't win a war against addiction.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

You don't need to smoke it. There are many other ways to use it, you can put it into a recipe, the healing elements can be removed and ingested as a liquid. 

The non-THC hemp plant is another discussion. There are so many uses for it that it's ridiculous that it's not legal. It's fast growing so you can get multiple crops per year. Many farmers could boost their bottom line if they could add a hemp crop to their fields.

The resources allocated to enforcement of these laws is massively disproportionate to any harm that pot would do to society, let alone the medical benefits and the tax and general economic benefits that would come of legalizing it. Add to that the fact that organized crime gets involved in supplying any product that society wants but government makes illegal. On top of that, most people who want to smoke pot already do anyway and it's widely available in spite of it being illegal.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> The war on tobacco worked.
> 
> If tobacco is bad, how can marijuana be good (for the general public)?


 What also is not being considered is this. Many on here are thinking back in th e60's and 70's where pt was being used.

But the Pot of today is at least 4 Times more powerful stronger then it was for thos that may have partaken in its use back in the day~!
it is NOT the same MJ....


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> You don't consider health to be a really good reason.


That is a good reason not to use it, but a bad reason to make it illegal. 

As for legalizing all drugs, I still say go for it. Make them all legal. I am all for defunding the CIA's black op budget. 

Consider the effect of scarcity in economics:

*Scarcity causes higher prices.
*Illegal trade (as well as regulated trade) causes scarcity.
*Therefore, illegal drugs are expensive drugs.
*expensive drugs means I had to pay $40,000 to mount my A/C units on top of my building to protect the $30 worth of copper in them.

That's at the heart of my position. I strongly believe that the world would be a less violent place with no drug laws.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

A lot of things that aren't "good for you" are still legal. 

Everyone knows that a diet of double cheeseburgers with bacon, hot fries and soda is not healthy and, if eaten every day, will shorten your life. But is it illegal? Nope. But just like pot, no one is making you ingest it. You still have the personal freedom to chose what you want to put in your body. 

Unlike other banned substances, marijuana can have some good medical effects. Cancer patients can eat if they use it. Some people with anxiety can also smoke it and not need more potent pharmaceuticals. In that case, pot is cheaper than drugs. 

I say we need to legalize it, tax it and let those who want to responsibly use it, use it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Maybe someday in the near future we'll have a multibillion dollar sporting empire built around the glorification of corner boys and their drug slinging exploits based on the Nascar model of worshipping moonshiners.


----------



## Buffy in Dallas (May 10, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> You don't consider health to be a really good reason.


Really?! You might want to watch this...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxrKyjeClTk[/ame]


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> I say we need to legalize it, tax it and let those who want to *responsibly use* it, use it.


So how would you stop those who irresponsibly use it?


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

I don't understand how people think that States have made marijuana legal. I don't think that they have. They changed the requirements of their State laws but marijuana still is Schedule I on the Federal list.

What needs to happen is for the Federal Government to remove marijuana from their Schedule I list (or get rid of the list all-together!) but that has some serious repercussions involved. So instead it still remains illegal to grow/use/possess under Federal law but the current POTUS has selected not to enforce that law in States which have modified their regulations.

It's building up to a bad situation in the future. Another example of our Federal Government unwilling to handle a difficult situation and instead just kicking the can down the road for the future to figure out.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> Really?! You might want to watch this...


Smoking marijuana can have bad health effects. That is a fact, not my opinion. Because it can be used for health purposes does not negate the negative health effects it has.

The marijuana grown specifically for health purposes is a separate issue from legalized marijuana. The plants have different properties.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> So how would you stop those who irresponsibly use it?


In the same, mostly ineffectual, way we try to stop those who irresponsibly use alcohol? Or we could continue to spend billions in mostly ineffectual enforcement of drug laws and prop up the "corrections" industry and lose millions of dollars of potential tax revenue to the underground economy and foreign drug cartels.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> Smoking marijuana can have bad health effects. That is a fact, not my opinion. Because it can be used for health purposes does not negate the negative health effects it has.
> 
> The marijuana grown specifically for health purposes is a separate issue from legalized marijuana. The plants have different properties.


Who says you have to smoke it?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

coolrunnin said:


> Who says you have to smoke it?


No one said you need to smoke it, but there are some things that are obvious.

The move to legalize pot was not led by bakers.


----------



## Buffy in Dallas (May 10, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> Smoking marijuana can have bad health effects. That is a fact, not my opinion. Because it can be used for health purposes does not negate the negative health effects it has.
> 
> The marijuana grown specifically for health purposes is a separate issue from legalized marijuana. The plants have different properties.


Even if you just want to get high and not use it for the health benefits, you don't have to smoke it. 

Check out this you tube channel..

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ6-pZV8eFwH30nkxKQlm8Q


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> Even if you just want to get high and not use it for the health benefits, you don't have to smoke it.


When pot was legalized in CO, they held a smoke-in, not a bake-in.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> When pot was legalized in CO, they held a smoke-in, not a bake-in.


So what? You can use a vaporizer as well. The point is heath reasons is not a good reason to put people in jail.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> No one said you need to smoke it, but there are some things that are obvious.
> 
> The move to legalize pot was not led by bakers.


You said you smoking it causes health issues.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> When pot was legalized in CO, they held a smoke-in, not a bake-in.


Wait until it becomes Kosher. http://jezebel.com/kosher-pot-may-be-coming-soon-1687478991

That "everything" bagel could solve a lot of problems. Good for what ails you and solves the munchies in one fell swoop.


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

Funny thing I have a client that is a Doctor, he told me there is now a pill derived from weed that offers the purported pain killing benifets of weed without the getting high side effect. Oddly enough not many people want it. 

Makes me question what the real motive of using weed is. I personally don't care what you drink, eat , swallow, inject, or inhale into your body, its your body and you only get one life .... live and let live.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

Here you go.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKhukbe_VkE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKhukbe_VkE[/ame]
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpNgZmkH0-A"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpNgZmkH0-A[/ame]


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Marinea said:


> I can give you a non-cynical answer: it helps with pain.
> 
> I had a fiancÃ© with bone cancer. He was on a continuous morphine drip, and it didn't touch his pain. The only thing that helped his pain, and allowed him to keep down some food, was marijuana. He used it when he could until he died.
> 
> ...


Because I am aware that it is federal illegal I posted the question if in states that are legalizing pot if they are creating a situation for the Fed (note loretta Lynn's. Favorite action....forfeiture of assets)....where people involved with pot business could lose everything in one swoop.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> Because I am aware that it is federal illegal I posted the question if in states that are legalizing pot if they are creating a situation for the Fed (note loretta Lynn's. Favorite action....forfeiture of assets)....where people involved with pot business could lose everything in one swoop.


I think so. Government is not addressing this at the current moment. Instead, they are selecting to allow a private marijuana industry to start and then deal with the repercussions at a later time. I think it is quite possible that many people will lose a lot.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

doingitmyself said:


> Funny thing I have a client that is a Doctor, he told me there is now a pill derived from weed that offers the purported pain killing benifets of weed without the getting high side effect. Oddly enough not many people want it.


That's been around for decades, if it's the one I'm aware of. It doesn't work the same as cannabis because it's a single pure isomer, without the other 50+ cannabinoids found in marijuana, including CBD, which much research shows to be the most beneficial part of cannabis for many conditions...and it doesn't get you high. Another cannabinoid missing from the pill is CBC, which is anti-inflammatory and is thought to contribute to the pain-killing effect of cannabis.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I think so. Government is not addressing this at the current moment. Instead, they are selecting to allow a private marijuana industry to start and then deal with the repercussions at a later time. I think it is quite possible that many people will lose a lot.


It's probably likely if the next president is a republican. If it's a democrat it could go either way. It happened in California at the beginning of Obama's reign. He had said he wouldn't enforce the federal laws against medical marijuana people there, but then he changed his mind and started busting them. He has since flip-flopped back the other way. A republican president would probably reverse course back to aggressive enforcement. It's a highly unstable situation to have such things resting on the whims of one person.


----------



## Gray Wolf (Jan 25, 2013)

Did we ask the "why" question like this about lottos, booze, tobacco, 70 mph speed limits, taxes on food, mandatory education, etc etc? Nope. 

Why not is the question to ask. The voters in all states are taking a look at the health and tax issues of pot. The politicians see money. The outcome will be a bit more money for the states and a better /safer life for those who chose to use it.

It has proven safer than booze or tobacco. 
There are no documented deaths from overdosing.
It has proven medical benifits for a wide varity of problems.
It is also a good recreational drug for responsible adult users.
Why not indeed?

Yes, we smoke. Have for over 50 years. 
Yes, I started, owned and ran an engineering consulting company for over 25 years.
Yes, my wife was a school teacher.
Yes, we would no more go to work stoned than we would drunk. Why would we?
Yes, we have medical cards.
Yes, we voted for recreational pot.
Yes, we smoke with our adult children and adult grand children, just like we have a beer with them.

If you go to work, drive, raise kids, operate farm equipment, etc, while you are drunk now - sure - pot isn't for you. If you are a responsable adult... why not... and the elected are comming around. Slowly.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

> A group of sheriffs will file a lawsuit Thursday against Colorado for its legal marijuana law.
> The lawsuit says legalizing pot on a state level while itâs still illegal on a federal one creates a âcrisis of conscience,â USA Today reports.
> Colorado is âasking every peace officer to violate their oath,â Larimer County, Colo., Sheriff Justin Smith, the lead plaintiff in the suit, said. âWhat weâre being forced to do â¦ makes me ineligible for office. Which constitution are we supposed to uphold?â


http://time.com/3733173/sheriffs-pot-colorado/


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

That's total B.S. The federal drug laws are not in the Constitution. They can uphold their oath to the Constitution just fine. I actually own some property in Larimer County and have some mutual friends with that sheriff. I think I'll reach out and let him know how stupid that statement was.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

jtbrandt said:


> That's total B.S. The federal drug laws are not in the Constitution. They can uphold their oath to the Constitution just fine. I actually own some property in Larimer County and have some mutual friends with that sheriff. I think I'll reach out and let him know how stupid that statement was.


I agree that it doesn't violate the US Constitution, but if you substitute the word "regulation" for the word "Constitution" then I can understand the dilemma LEO have been placed in. It needs to be resolved legislatively first, then the law may be enforced.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

Michael W. Smith said:


> Just wait till government sees the cash coming in. *They will be letting prostitution become legal as well.*


As is should be. 

Again, either you own your body, or you don't.

I wouldn't be interested in it, but then there are a whole big long list of professions I wouldn't be interested in.....starting with concrete finisher, and septic tank cleaner, and so on.....


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I agree that it doesn't violate the US Constitution, but if you substitute the word "regulation" for the word "Constitution" then I can understand the dilemma LEO have been placed in. It needs to be resolved legislatively first, then the law may be enforced.


That's true, but he made it about the Constitution, not regulations.

They may or may not have a duty to enforce federal laws, but it almost certainly isn't part of their oath as he claims. This same sheriff makes a point of how he refuses to enforce other federal laws that he believes violate the Constitution (and I agree with him on that) but he has a "conflict" with this issue. He's full of crap. He may have a legitimate dilemma, but it has nothing to do with violating his oath to the Constitution.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

jtbrandt said:


> That's total B.S. The federal drug laws are not in the Constitution. They can uphold their oath to the Constitution just fine. I actually own some property in Larimer County and have some mutual friends with that sheriff. I think I'll reach out and let him know how stupid that statement was.


By definition, federal laws are implementations of the Constitution.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> By definition, federal laws are implementations of the Constitution.


Not quite. The Constitution authorizes the federal government to make such laws and charges the executive branch with enforcing them. It doesn't require the federal government to make any particular law. An oath to uphold the Constitution is not an oath to enforce every federal law, or even any federal law. It is an oath to uphold the Constitution itself, nothing more or less. I took an oath to defend the Constitution...do you think I'm required to enforce federal laws?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

[YOUTUBE] ?v=5iVyd1gJ3aI&spfreload=10[/YOUTUBE]

I'll Never Smoke Weed Will Wille Again

[YOUTUBE] ?v=wDQANmQO2g0&spfreload=10[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Jlynnp (Sep 9, 2014)

We are here discussing legalizing marijuana and talking about alcohol. Now I have no problem with legalizing Marijuana as I feel it is no more addictive than alcohol. Yet the public gets up in arms when you talk about legalizing it. 

Yet everyday we shove the most addictive legal substance in the world down our throats and the throats of our children and grandchildren - sugar. In all honesty it kills more people and causes more illness than either Alcohol or Marijuana. Yet yumm it tastes good and is legal.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> http://time.com/3733173/sheriffs-pot-colorado/



That cop makes about as much sense as this one.http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2014/08/06/helmetta-cop-constitution-obama/13670849/:bored:


----------



## Gray Wolf (Jan 25, 2013)

OLYMPIA, Wash. - The Washington state House of Representatives passed by a wide margin a bill to allow the state's Native American tribes to formally participate in the state's legalized marijuana business.
----------------
Now it's going to be a competitive market with private retailers....like tribal smokeshops...maybe. I wonder how long until it's in Walmart like tobacco and booze is?


----------



## Gray Wolf (Jan 25, 2013)

Oh, here is some more of the story related to the many Sovereign Nations in the US and who/what governs them. It's all going to happen eventually but it sure is fun to argue about in the meantime isn't it?
-----------------------
The bill's lead sponsor, Rep. Christopher Hurst, D-Enumclaw, said the bill was needed after the federal government last year took the position that tribes in states with legal marijuana are free to set their own policies about the drug.


----------



## StL.Ed (Mar 6, 2011)

I've said it before, but I'll say it again...
It took an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, and another amendment to make it legal and controlled; so, how can any other substance Constitutionally be illegal by executive fiat?


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

StL.Ed said:


> I've said it before, but I'll say it again...
> It took an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, and another amendment to make it legal and controlled; so, how can any other substance Constitutionally be illegal by executive fiat?


I believe it relates to the slight-of-hand way the Federal Government has for making the drug "illegal". I know I have read this before but somehow I'm not able to find a substantiating link at this time so take this with a grain of salt.

There is nothing which make marijuana possession truly illegal in and of itself. What Congress has done is placed a tax upon it requiring the purchase of a coupon in order to have a certain unit of marijuana. It is then illegal to have _un-taxed_ marijuana, ie that which is does not have an accompanying coupon. Now to make all marijuana illegal they simply stop issuing coupons.

I believe that is why marijuana is referred to as a "controlled substance" rather than an illegal one. If anybody can find a link regarding this please post.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

StL.Ed said:


> I've said it before, but I'll say it again...
> It took an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, and another amendment to make it legal and controlled; so, how can any other substance Constitutionally be illegal by executive fiat?


What gave them the right to make it illegal in the first place?What medical breakthrough or scientific find made them to change the law against freedom?
No good reason no good law?


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

The pot people are smoking today is not your grandfather's pot. It's been modified to increase the THC (http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana5.htm). If you're going to get up in arms over genetically modified foods, I fully expect you to also be disgusted at the genetically modified marijuana that's on it's way (if it's not already here).

I have no issues at all with fully grown adults who's brains have finished developing smoking pot, the same way I have no issue with fully grown adults who's brains have finished developing drinking alcohol. HOWEVER there are many studies out there that indicate that marijuana may interfere with brain development:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/02/25/282631913/marijuana-may-hurt-the-developing-teen-brain

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120827152039.htm

Now I'm sure that some of you will say that these studies are not accurate, or whatever, but after working with a number of teenagers in a professional capacity as a counselor, I've seen enough to believe that it has validity. Also, keep in mind that human brains do not finish developing until in some cases as late as 24 years of age. So if we operate on the belief that marijuana damages growing brains, people who start smoking it prior to 24 years of age would be at risk. 

Personally, I think it should be legal but very carefully controlled, AND that like tobacco there should be a great deal of public education on the effects of marijuana on the growing brain. That way people would be aware that there is a reason it's only legal for adults, IMO age 24+ would be the best recommendation. Exceptions of course for people of any age who medically require it for pain (i.e. kids undergoing cancer treatments would have to have their doctors sit down with their parents to discuss the pros/cons of using it).


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I have no wish to use it myself, but man, would I love a cut of the action as far as growing and selling it! :happy2:


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Me too...I've thought about doing it, but just not willing to take the risk with the federal government still being so wishy washy about it. No desire to smoke it, and actually more interested in growing high CBD strains for medicinal uses...the real medicinal uses, not the ones that usually include air quotes.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well last night I spoke with Peter Micciche..my senator
I can have one oz and six plants of which only 3 can be mature....note the raven law should have allowed me 25 plants and four oz.

Right now, it is still illegal to sell but gifting is ok.

Regs are no to.place for selling.

Out of curiosity I wonder how many seeds are allowed.

And if pot is mixed in brownies.....how do the figure on the amount of pot.

I kinda think growing pot as a house plant but but does it grow and die our could one just keep it growing.

I mostly likely won't grow it I normally kill house plants...and a dead pot house plant might weigh more than an oz....illegal.


----------

