Posted on Feb 22, 2015
The Legal Marijuana Market Grew By 80 Percent Last Year. And It's Still Mostly Cash. Where are you on legalization?
19.7K
277
200
4
4
0
Protecting Marijuana's $2.7 Billion Cash Industry When Banks Won't
Thanks to recreational legalization in Colorado and Washington, the U.S. marijuana industry exploded from $1.5 billion to $2.7 billion in one year. But now, ...
The military can still order service members to not use Marijuana if made legal.
Where are you on legalization for the rest of the population?
Where are you on legalization for the rest of the population?
Marijuana
Economy
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 60
6
6
0
I don't do drugs or anything that resembles a drug or may be misclassified as a drug. That's my choice. I make it freely. There are many who choose otherwise. Should they have any less right to choose than I? No, of course not.
But the argument for legalizing drugs goes far beyond the argument of individual rights. (And yes, I mean all drugs.) Prohibition is costly. It has seriously ravaged our law enforcement community as well as our criminal courts. If you think that treating a few drug addled patients is more costly than that, you don't have any concept of the true costs.
That being said, I will add one very important caveat. Together with the repeal of all prohibitions, I would insist on the elimination of the legal defense of impaired capacity. What's that (I hear you cry)? Basically, it's a defense used to mitigate punishment for acts committed while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. After all, advocates argued, the defendant would never have done any such thing had they been sober... Yes, it works. Not all the time. In times past, the defense was used more successfully than it is these days. However, I'd take it a step further... Anyone who causes injury or damages property while under the influence should be held accountable as though they acted with malice aforethought. That is, inasmuch as the alcohol or drug use is voluntary (irrespective of addiction) and it is well known that judgment is impaired while using such agents, we may assume that defendants anticipated the potential for harm and still took the chance.
"Malice aforethought" is an important qualified, especially in criminal cases. Under my proposed system, a drunk driver who kills someone may be charged with first degree murder. Forget manslaughter. No one make them take the alcohol or drugs, so let them suffer the consequences. That in effect is the responsibility of freedom. Free men and women must be held accountable for the consequences of their choices or they can't handle freedom. It's really as simple as that...
But the argument for legalizing drugs goes far beyond the argument of individual rights. (And yes, I mean all drugs.) Prohibition is costly. It has seriously ravaged our law enforcement community as well as our criminal courts. If you think that treating a few drug addled patients is more costly than that, you don't have any concept of the true costs.
That being said, I will add one very important caveat. Together with the repeal of all prohibitions, I would insist on the elimination of the legal defense of impaired capacity. What's that (I hear you cry)? Basically, it's a defense used to mitigate punishment for acts committed while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. After all, advocates argued, the defendant would never have done any such thing had they been sober... Yes, it works. Not all the time. In times past, the defense was used more successfully than it is these days. However, I'd take it a step further... Anyone who causes injury or damages property while under the influence should be held accountable as though they acted with malice aforethought. That is, inasmuch as the alcohol or drug use is voluntary (irrespective of addiction) and it is well known that judgment is impaired while using such agents, we may assume that defendants anticipated the potential for harm and still took the chance.
"Malice aforethought" is an important qualified, especially in criminal cases. Under my proposed system, a drunk driver who kills someone may be charged with first degree murder. Forget manslaughter. No one make them take the alcohol or drugs, so let them suffer the consequences. That in effect is the responsibility of freedom. Free men and women must be held accountable for the consequences of their choices or they can't handle freedom. It's really as simple as that...
(6)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Thank you CPT Jack. That would be great if the law would change to murder over vehicle manslaughter. When a drunk or doper kills a whole family, by being impaired, they deserve life without parole at the least.
(1)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
CPT Jack Durish, I agree 100%. I came to make a comment like yours, but I would not have stated it as well.
(0)
(0)
7
6
1
Nobody has a right to tell you what you can or cannot ingest into your own body. Deregulate all drugs. People who cannot control themselves will win Darwin awards and quickly raise the average IQ of the population at the same time.
(7)
(1)
Cpl Jeff N.
The government has been telling us what we can ingest for decades. There are many products that have been banned by the feds. Of course there are many illegal substances today as well.
This will not end up in the realm of natural selection. The people that become unservicable due to drugs will need treatment and medical care and guess who they will turn to for it. That's right, all of us, through medicaid. obamacare and other forms of subsidized care. We will have an entire genre of people in the country that will be rendered unable to work or function due to drug use, addiction etc. The bleeding hearts will not allow them to die. We will be paying for drug rehab centers, medical care, housing, food, etc etc etc.
This will not end up in the realm of natural selection. The people that become unservicable due to drugs will need treatment and medical care and guess who they will turn to for it. That's right, all of us, through medicaid. obamacare and other forms of subsidized care. We will have an entire genre of people in the country that will be rendered unable to work or function due to drug use, addiction etc. The bleeding hearts will not allow them to die. We will be paying for drug rehab centers, medical care, housing, food, etc etc etc.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Well my comment was sort of the "Best Case Scenario". I don't agree with subsidizing health care either.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Cpl Jeff N. I'd like to speak to a couple of points you made in your response above.
You said "The government has been telling us what we can ingest for decades. There are many products that have been banned by the feds. Of course there are many illegal substances today as well."
I would like to point out that just because the government says it doesn't make it right or just. What if tomorrow the government decided that sugary sodas were the cause of the nation's obesity and banned them and made it a felony to possess them? Should it be OK then to put people in jail for simply owning and consuming a soda drink? The argument could be made that soda's are a gateway to obesity which is causing us tons of money in subsidized insurance and the high taxes to cover it.
You also state that "We will have an entire genre of people in the country that will be rendered unable to work or function due to drug use, addiction etc."
Do you honestly believe that this would happen if suddenly drugs were legal? It wasn't the case before they were made illegal. People who want to get high or consume drugs will do so whether it's legal or not. I would like to know where the evidence exists that says we'll have a generation of useless people from drug use simply because it became legal or deregulated.
With all that being said, I do see where you are coming from, and I personally have too much respect for myself to use drugs. I like to be in control of myself so i don't use drugs or even alcohol (maybe 2 or 3 social drinks a year).
You said "The government has been telling us what we can ingest for decades. There are many products that have been banned by the feds. Of course there are many illegal substances today as well."
I would like to point out that just because the government says it doesn't make it right or just. What if tomorrow the government decided that sugary sodas were the cause of the nation's obesity and banned them and made it a felony to possess them? Should it be OK then to put people in jail for simply owning and consuming a soda drink? The argument could be made that soda's are a gateway to obesity which is causing us tons of money in subsidized insurance and the high taxes to cover it.
You also state that "We will have an entire genre of people in the country that will be rendered unable to work or function due to drug use, addiction etc."
Do you honestly believe that this would happen if suddenly drugs were legal? It wasn't the case before they were made illegal. People who want to get high or consume drugs will do so whether it's legal or not. I would like to know where the evidence exists that says we'll have a generation of useless people from drug use simply because it became legal or deregulated.
With all that being said, I do see where you are coming from, and I personally have too much respect for myself to use drugs. I like to be in control of myself so i don't use drugs or even alcohol (maybe 2 or 3 social drinks a year).
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
I didn't say I agreed with everything the government says we can or cannot ingest, I just made the observation that it is happening regularly. You said they don't have the right and I observed they do based upon the fact they are doing it today.
I do believe if you make illicit drugs legal and available more people will use them. It will become socially "acceptable". The most at risk will be kids coming of age. Drugs serve only one purpose and that is to get a high (or a low) from them. You can have a drink without getting drunk but no one smokes pot, uses cocaine, meth, heroin etc without the expressed purpose of getting stoned.
Look at what is happening in Denver at public parks. Stoned people are hanging out all day. They have no jobs or opportunity so they will either be on the dole or committing crimes to get their pot. This is a dead end street. We are a society that is creating a multitude of citizens that will be non contributors. They will need someone to take care of them and their needs their entire life. I have no desire to do that.
I do believe if you make illicit drugs legal and available more people will use them. It will become socially "acceptable". The most at risk will be kids coming of age. Drugs serve only one purpose and that is to get a high (or a low) from them. You can have a drink without getting drunk but no one smokes pot, uses cocaine, meth, heroin etc without the expressed purpose of getting stoned.
Look at what is happening in Denver at public parks. Stoned people are hanging out all day. They have no jobs or opportunity so they will either be on the dole or committing crimes to get their pot. This is a dead end street. We are a society that is creating a multitude of citizens that will be non contributors. They will need someone to take care of them and their needs their entire life. I have no desire to do that.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Legalize it, regulate the THC content, and heavily tax it like alcohol and tobacco.
(6)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google