Breaking the Taboo

[Bald Brick]

I just noticed this thread and would like to put my two cents in.

There's some things about MJ I find problematic. Firstly is that it's airborne. A mind altering drug that that can reach me without my consent I find intrusive. I find tobacco smoke similarly irritating not for the brain altering part but for the lung altering aspect. I feel that other people should have the right to damage themselves but not me.

Then there's the thing where embryos can supposedly be damaged in the womb by pot. Have their brains changed on them. Not cool.

And lastly there's the thing about people being impaired while driving and there is currently no level/test for that.

Overall though I feel pot is likely less troublesome than alcohol so by extension probably should be legalized and the risks minimized as much as possible. I'd also like to advocate for SOMA, that sci-fi drug of yesteryore that causes a nice high without causing any damage http://www.denofgeek.com/other/12573/top-10-sci-fi-drugs

There are lots of things related to both cannabis and hevyer drugs that are more than problematic.

Occasional recreational use of marijuana shouldn't be more of a problem than a glass or two of a good wine at dinner. Those two glasses are good for you, but for many people they aren't enough. And that makes alcohol a social problem even if it doesn't make you aggressive and even if you realize that you shouldn't drive when intoxicated.

That, however, is not what this thread is about. The question is: has prohibition worked? When it comes to alcohol, it was determined a long time ago that it didn't work, either in the US or in my country. People didn't drink less. The only positive result was that bootleggers got rich.

Now some people (like NoIBnds) see the negative effects of drug use, and common sense tells them that if marijuana and hard drugs are legalized, those effects will be ten times worse.

But will they? Is common sense to be trusted? If prohibition of alcohol taught us anything it was that prohibition itself creates more problems than whatever you are trying to prohibit. And there is some evidence that this is true about the war against drugs too.

Legalizing drugs does not solve most drug-related problems, but at least it would move the drug trade from the gangsters to people who can be controlled. And most probably you wouldn't see an increase in drug use.

I suppose that passive pot smoking could be a problem, but hardly much more difficult to handle than passive tobacco smoking.

And when it comes to marijuana: cannabis does have medical uses and some of the potential ones haven't been studied because of this ridiculous taboo.

[Jim Dandy]

"...Legalizing drugs does not solve most drug-related problems, but at least it would move the drug trade from the gangsters to people who can be controlled. And most probably you wouldn't see an increase in drug use..."

If heroin or cocaine (or any other "hard" drug) were legalized today would you run out and get some at the first opportunity? Most people wouldn't. Even though those drugs are illegal now they are most certainly available and anyone who wants them can get them.

[NoIBnds]

"...Freedom is never Free."

And never lasts much longer than just enough time for the politicians to pass laws against it.

BUT without laws, there is no society or civilization, then it become the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. Darwin's Rules

Well, there are some laws that make sense but a lot more that don't. I think we could be just as civilized with a thousandth as many laws as there are on the books. Of course some of us could be civil if there were no laws on the books.

For every law, a freedom dies.  So at what point do we say enough with the laws because you are killing our freedoms.  I personally know of several people that use certain "illegal" substances and are causing no harm to anyone other than themselves.  I also know several people that are abusing legal substances and making everyone's life miserable.  Which is preferable? 

Let's do away with the idiotic laws, whether it is for drugs, cars, habitations, etc.  I once looked into moving closer to a job I held, but when I heard the ridiculous laws the small town had in effect, I decided I would rather drive a half an hour each way.  You basically had no control over your property.  The city had ordinances on what type of trees you could plant, how high you fence could be, what sort of decorations you could have in your yard and windows.  I told the person selling the house that I could not live there, because I like my freedom and my right to express myself.

I live in a state that is suing to keep the Affordable Healthcare Act from being enacted, the State Attorney states that the government cannot mandate people have to have insurance.  Meanwhile they are stepping up on car insurance enforcement.  Talk about being two faced.  Either you can't mandate insurance or you can.  If you can tell people they have to have one type of insurance, then you can mandate all types of insurance.

I agree with you to some extent-- it is a fine balance on laws.  No laws and it is the jungle, no civilization, too many and you have tyranny. The place you wanted to move with all the restrictions, the people there wanted those laws. That is the nice thing about local control, the closer to local, the more the people have input. I would not live there either, but the people there want it like that. You had a choice to live elsewhere
The difference on the Healthcare, is that it is mandated for being alive and breathing in this country. It is not like you can move to a different state, you have to give up your citizenship and leave the country-- not local control, but federal. Also there are huge tax burdens for the state if enacted. The Auto insurance, is only mandated if you drive a vehicle on the public way, and it is to protect others from the drivers actions. Driving is a privilege not a right, last I looked living was a right. It also has to do with the way the USA is set up as a Republic. Massachusetts enacted healthcare with mandates, if you didn't like it could move out of that state, yet still be a citizen of the USA. If you liked the idea you could move into that state. 50 states and each states citizens could decide which is best for them. Same thing with the referendums on the drug laws. The people get to decide and each state is a laboratory on what works. Yet with Federal Drug laws it overrides and thwarts the will of the people of that state. Same thing with Roe V Wade-- took that from the States and gave it to the Federal Government. Thwarts the will of the people in each state to decide. The further out the laws are made the less it is the will of the local people. If you live in a small town, the leaders are people you see all the time and can call if you like or dislike. Try that with a senator or the President. 

You miss the point.  The point is that the State AG's stance is that health insurance cannot be mandated by the government, my point is if one type of insurance can't be mandated then no insurance can be mandated by government.  There is no gray area there.  I agree that you should have both insurances, but that is a matter of choice.  For if you are in an accident, you will need both.  But considering no matter what level insurance you have, you will most likely get sued.

Read the US Constitution, the Federal Government has limited powers, those granted in the constitution, the states have all the rest of the powers. It IS legal for states to mandate it, it is not for the Feds. Is why the supreme court put it under the tax laws and a penalty. They do have the power to levy taxes. I do not miss the point, states powers are not as limited as the US Government.
      The mandate for vehicle insurance is ONLY when you are on the Public Way (streets) you do not need it on private property- parking lots, farms, etc. The state has the right to make laws for the public way. Leave the car on private property no insurance required. The health insurance is required for just being alive, in public or private.

[ppiklapp]

"...Freedom is never Free."

And never lasts much longer than just enough time for the politicians to pass laws against it.

BUT without laws, there is no society or civilization, then it become the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. Darwin's Rules

Well, there are some laws that make sense but a lot more that don't. I think we could be just as civilized with a thousandth as many laws as there are on the books. Of course some of us could be civil if there were no laws on the books.

For every law, a freedom dies.  So at what point do we say enough with the laws because you are killing our freedoms.  I personally know of several people that use certain "illegal" substances and are causing no harm to anyone other than themselves.  I also know several people that are abusing legal substances and making everyone's life miserable.  Which is preferable? 

Let's do away with the idiotic laws, whether it is for drugs, cars, habitations, etc.  I once looked into moving closer to a job I held, but when I heard the ridiculous laws the small town had in effect, I decided I would rather drive a half an hour each way.  You basically had no control over your property.  The city had ordinances on what type of trees you could plant, how high you fence could be, what sort of decorations you could have in your yard and windows.  I told the person selling the house that I could not live there, because I like my freedom and my right to express myself.

I live in a state that is suing to keep the Affordable Healthcare Act from being enacted, the State Attorney states that the government cannot mandate people have to have insurance.  Meanwhile they are stepping up on car insurance enforcement.  Talk about being two faced.  Either you can't mandate insurance or you can.  If you can tell people they have to have one type of insurance, then you can mandate all types of insurance.

I agree with you to some extent-- it is a fine balance on laws.  No laws and it is the jungle, no civilization, too many and you have tyranny. The place you wanted to move with all the restrictions, the people there wanted those laws. That is the nice thing about local control, the closer to local, the more the people have input. I would not live there either, but the people there want it like that. You had a choice to live elsewhere
The difference on the Healthcare, is that it is mandated for being alive and breathing in this country. It is not like you can move to a different state, you have to give up your citizenship and leave the country-- not local control, but federal. Also there are huge tax burdens for the state if enacted. The Auto insurance, is only mandated if you drive a vehicle on the public way, and it is to protect others from the drivers actions. Driving is a privilege not a right, last I looked living was a right. It also has to do with the way the USA is set up as a Republic. Massachusetts enacted healthcare with mandates, if you didn't like it could move out of that state, yet still be a citizen of the USA. If you liked the idea you could move into that state. 50 states and each states citizens could decide which is best for them. Same thing with the referendums on the drug laws. The people get to decide and each state is a laboratory on what works. Yet with Federal Drug laws it overrides and thwarts the will of the people of that state. Same thing with Roe V Wade-- took that from the States and gave it to the Federal Government. Thwarts the will of the people in each state to decide. The further out the laws are made the less it is the will of the local people. If you live in a small town, the leaders are people you see all the time and can call if you like or dislike. Try that with a senator or the President. 

You miss the point.  The point is that the State AG's stance is that health insurance cannot be mandated by the government, my point is if one type of insurance can't be mandated then no insurance can be mandated by government.  There is no gray area there.  I agree that you should have both insurances, but that is a matter of choice.  For if you are in an accident, you will need both.  But considering no matter what level insurance you have, you will most likely get sued.

Read the US Constitution, the Federal Government has limited powers, those granted in the constitution, the states have all the rest of the powers. It IS legal for states to mandate it, it is not for the Feds. Is why the supreme court put it under the tax laws and a penalty. They do have the power to levy taxes. I do not miss the point, states powers are not as limited as the US Government.
      The mandate for vehicle insurance is ONLY when you are on the Public Way (streets) you do not need it on private property- parking lots, farms, etc. The state has the right to make laws for the public way. Leave the car on private property no insurance required. The health insurance is required for just being alive, in public or private.

Again you miss the nuance of his statement, he states that GOVERNMENT (not making any other distinctions) has no right to mandate insurance.  I am following it to the logical end, if GOVERNMENT cannot mandate insurance, then the state mandating insurance is illegal by his own terms.  If they are successful someone will drag that decision into court to throw that out.  As for whether the state has powers over public places, I don't see any state escorting Federal Officers out, because their law show override federal law.

It is not exactly a state ruling on vehicle insurance, it was another deal in order to keep federal funding the states had to pass that law.  Just like it used to be with speed limits, but the states are rebelling against that rule, as several states have upped the speed limit above federal standards.

Like I said, someone will end up suing and ending that law because these states are going off half cocked and not thinking through the whole deal.

[jaydot]

hold up lads and lasses.  the discussion is about 'breaking the taboo'.  leave the rest on the back burner and get back to that, if you please.

[dixonpete]

Prince of Pot The US vs. Marc Emery (Full Version)

Here's a video about Marc Emery, Canada's prince of Pot and his crusade against pot prohibition. I knew Marc peripherally back in the early eighties as a patron of his bookstore in London Ontario.

Marc was extradited in 2010 and is currently serving a 5 year sentence in Mississippi.

So far as I understand him his argument against pot prohibition comes from his Libertarian/Anne Rand roots, and a HUGE problem with authority

[gandy]

The documentary is online.
https://www.youtube.com/user/breakingthetaboofilm?feature=watch

[Just17]

The documentary is online.
https://www.youtube.com/user/breakingthetaboofilm?feature=watch

Thanks for the reminder .....  grabbing it as I write ....