Amendment 64...

[Ridge]

It has to be "legalized" at the federal level first (if nothing else because frankly federal laws against MJ are another example of the abuse of the "commerce clause").

Last year or the year before Montana passed a law that exempts it from NFA regulations, as long as the items are manufactured and sold within the state.

That provides a precedent for marijuana, since it's all manufactured, bought and consumed within the state.

[MarkCO]

What is your reason to think that legal pot will drive designer drug production? And, what will be the difference between the designer drugs now, and in the future?

When the profitabilty of pot is decreased, the same people will very likely move on to other drugs with a higher potential for profit. Legalization is not going to all of a sudden make drug dealers a beneficial element of society. With the proliferation of designer drugs in the recent years, and the shipment of bulk chemicals from other countries for that purpose, there is a wider and simpler path to cash for drug dealers with designer drugs, which have become much more toxic and powerful in just the last few years.

[Irving]

So what is the difference between fighting the war on drugs against some new drug, and the drugs we have now? I see where you are thinking, but that is essentially saying that criminals will be criminals no matter what, so it doesn't matter that we have made things illegal that shouldn't be, because well, something has to be illegal.

[xring]

When the profitabilty of pot is decreased, the same people will very likely move on to other drugs with a higher potential for profit. Legalization is not going to all of a sudden make drug dealers a beneficial element of society. With the proliferation of designer drugs in the recent years, and the shipment of bulk chemicals from other countries for that purpose, there is a wider and simpler path to cash for drug dealers with designer drugs, which have become much more toxic and powerful in just the last few years.

As I have stated earlier I believe marijuana to be a powerful drug with significant addiction risk. Marijuana is the drug of choice for about 8 out of 10 illicit drug users. It is my opinion that if marijuana was to be legalized a large percentage of users would be content with use of only legal drugs, just like many citizens are content to use only alcohol now. In my opinion there would be limited demand for the illegal "powerful, toxic designer drugs" you describe. Are 80% of illicit drug users going to abandon their drug of choice once it becomes legal and seek out illegal "powerful toxic designer drugs"? What I believe will happen if marijuana becomes legal is the majority of illicit marijuana users will have a strong incentive to use the only two legal drugs,marijuana and alcohol, shun criminal activities, and be overjoyed that they are no longer a criminal.

1;Its their drug of choice to begin with
2;They would not have to associate with the scumbag criminals to obtain it.
3;They would not face the risk of criminal prosecution .

The motivation is exactly the same that keeps the majority of citizens using the one legal drug available now, alcohol. In my opinion illicit drug use would strongly decline with the legalization of marijuana and the power and profits of the cartels along with it. The real question in my mind is whether legalization of marijuana and its subsequent addiction problems is worth the benefits of decriminalization of marijuana users. Imho the answer is overwhelminly yes, despite my distaste for potheads, or drunks for that matter.

[MarkCO]

So what is the difference between fighting the war on drugs against some new drug, and the drugs we have now? I see where you are thinking, but that is essentially saying that criminals will be criminals no matter what, so it doesn't matter that we have made things illegal that shouldn't be, because well, something has to be illegal.

Kind of, but not really. The drug culture was created long before any of us were born, however the need for politicians to legislate morality, at least in this arena, ended up creating a monster instead of protecting the citizens. It was inevitable, and it won't go away.

[MarkCO]

As I have stated earlier I believe marijuana to be a powerful drug with significant addiction risk. Marijuana is the drug of choice for about 8 out of 10 illicit drug users. It is my opinion that if marijuana was to be legalized a large percentage of users would be content with use of only legal drugs, just like many citizens are content to use only alcohol now. In my opinion there would be limited demand for the illegal "powerful, toxic designer drugs" you describe. Are 80% of illicit drug users going to abandon their drug of choice once it becomes legal and seek out illegal "powerful toxic designer drugs"? What I believe will happen if marijuana becomes legal is the majority of illicit marijuana users will have a strong incentive to use the only two legal drugs,marijuana and alcohol, shun criminal activities, and be overjoyed that they are no longer a criminal.

1;Its their drug of choice to begin with
2;They would not have to associate with the scumbag criminals to obtain it.
3;They would not face the risk of criminal prosecution .

The motivation is exactly the same that keeps the majority of citizens using the one legal drug available now, alcohol. In my opinion illicit drug use would strongly decline with the legalization of marijuana and the power and profits of the cartels along with it. The real question in my mind is whether legalization of marijuana and its subsequent addiction problems is worth the benefits of decriminalization of marijuana users. Imho the answer is overwhelminly yes, despite my distaste for potheads, or drunks for that matter.

So I take it you don't have kids...

For many, the "forbidden" IS the drive. Legalization, in total, probably won't change the total use, but it will likely change the demographics. The number of people who "start" using pot under the age of 18 is staggering, and significantly higher than alcohol, so there may be some merit there.

However, the one thing we have all left out of this discussion is the "why". A kid does not take a drink or a hit to "escape" the first time, it is usually peer pressure. Continued use of drugs, for most, is the escape from reality, a reality that is not attractive. The greater the social decline, the more drugs will be desired, used and controlling of our society. If parents would spend more time with their kids instead of chasing the drug of money and consumerism, maybe drug use could be curtailed. A person who respects others and treats them with dignity does not desire nor pursue recreational drug use, legal or otherwise, because that person values others and their future.

[Teufelhund]

I can't stop shaking my head while reading the posts in here. You sound like liberals discussing why civilians shouldn't be allowed to own assault rifles.

[Irving]

However, the one thing we have all left out of this discussion is the "why". A kid does not take a drink or a hit to "escape" the first time, it is usually peer pressure. Continued use of drugs, for most, is the escape from reality, a reality that is not attractive. The greater the social decline, the more drugs will be desired, used and controlling of our society. If parents would spend more time with their kids instead of chasing the drug of money and consumerism, maybe drug use could be curtailed. A person who respects others and treats them with dignity does not desire nor pursue recreational drug use, legal or otherwise, because that person values others and their future.

Your responses are confusing and contradictory. I can't tell if you are for legalization, or against.

What I have quoted here, I agree with, but I don't see the part where it is the government's job to help our children make those correct decisions by throwing them into prison and turning them into criminals.

[stevelkinevil]

I will vote against Amendment 64.

Not because I oppose legalization of recreational use of MJ, actually I support that. But it has to be done correctly within the law.

It has to be "legalized" at the federal level first (if nothing else because frankly federal laws against MJ are another example of the abuse of the "commerce clause").

THEN states can pass laws allowing it.

Even then I will vote against them until there are several other states where its legal.


Whatever state legalizes pot first will become so over-run with liberal pothead idiots that every other aspect of politics, government, law and the economy will be ruined.

Since the vast majority of the hardcore pot crowd* are also socialist, gun control supporting idiots, they'll join the too-many liberals already here and make Colorado unlivable (and worse than California) in short order.


* those who would be motivated enough to relocate because of the law.

Although I understand your reasoning here I find one major flaw, fact is that is what has went wrong with our country, The Federal gov has become powerful in a way they were never intended to by the founding fathers. Laws were supposed to be controlled from the local/state level up, not the fed down. I do not smoke weed, frankly I am not a fan of folks that I have met who do, HOWEVER, it is a fact that this is the way things were intended to work in this nation, and without a top down approach the gun laws that cripple law abiding citizens may very well only exist in the places we don't want to live anyway.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Should have passed it last year so all the Obama voters would get stoned and stay home instead of voting ...


;-)


Seriously, I'm not a fan of recreational use of mind-altering drugs. I'd have been okay with the medical use as a pain reliever and anti-nausea agent of last resort if it wasn't for the fact that so much of the MMJ movement in recent years has been based on lies and deception. On the other hand, the drug war has been about as successful as Prohibition and had largely the same effect so clearly we need to find some other strategy to reduce the damaging effects of these substances.