Bipartisanship and Pot

J

JohnnyM

2,500+ Posts
Ron Paul and Barney Frank look to end the federal prohibition on marijuana and leave it up to the states. Who here is against this change?

I doubt this has ANY chance, but it's a step in the right direction, IMO.

WSJ Article
 
if only you felt the same about state rights as they pertain to other issues that are not the concern of the federal government.
 
are you for or against this?
___________________________________________

I'm for letting the states decide on this. California has basically legalized it already. The states should also trump the fed on education, healthcare, abortion, gay marriage, religion, and anyhting not included in article 6 of the constitution. people forget that we are supposed to be a republic of states.
 
Sweet, it's 4-0 so far.

If you guys want to discuss state's rights on other issues, start threads. I really am interested to hear opinions on the federal prohibition of marijuana, especially from those who agree with it.
 
Easy tax dollars. Lots of easy tax dollars.

History channel had a great show on how marijuana laws are handled in parts of California, Portugal, Amsterdam.
 
If you're trying to legalize pot in Texas, I don't think making it a state decision will get you there. . . at least not yet.
However, I'm 100% behind giving the state the power to make that choice.

When Ron Paul and Barney Frank agree on anything, I think the argument against is by definition the minority opinion.
 
I for one, hope CA makes it legal and the other states keep it illegal. No doubt that previously-taxed CA weed will find it's way to TX and other states.

****, Gov. Perry will probably inhale second-hand CA pot smoke in some bathhouse somewhere.
 
If you're trying to legalize pot in Texas, I don't think making it a state decision will get you there.
_________________________________________________

I can't buy a bottle of vodka on a sunday in tx. and the argument against legal poker or casino's is organized crime. there are too many people living in the dark ages here. i imagine it will be a while before its legal here.
 
Only law enforcement types, hand-wringing soccer moms, and the politicians who pander to them would oppose drawing back this particular federal overreach. Unfortunately that is probably enough!
rolleyes.gif
 
The issue seems to have been confused by far too many on this thread. Just as the media always wants to say that Ron Paul is for the legalisation of pot. This is simply not true. To my knowledge Paul has never stated his opinion on the legalisation of pot. What he has stated is that it is a right retained by states, as it is not a power enumerated by the Constitution to the federal government. I agree with him.
I am for the vote to NOT have a federal law making pot illegal, but mildly for a state law keeping it illegal. It isn't a huge issue to be at all, and I am in some ways of a mixed mind on the matter. I am VERY strongly in the camp of this being a state issue, much as so many other things that have been mentioned on this thread.
 
i am for this being decided by states and for the Federal government getting "smaller" on the issue…..
 
That's not what I said. You asked "Who here is against this change?" My opposition is not to the "change" part, it's to the "this" part.
 
HP,
I could argue that in 2 ways a government has the right to make a substance illegal.

1) when the consent of the governed asks for it. This is why anything should be legal or illegal I would say. If we believe in a democracy, or a republic as we have, that the right to govern comes from the consent of those governed, then when the people consent to have certain things made illegal; they are.

2) In the history of western philosophy, particularly political philosophy, a person does not belong only to themselves, but also to the larger community. This is always something held in balance. It is why conscription to armies can be legal, why suicide in most western countries historically has been illegal. Because your life is not entirely your own. There are consequences and costs associated with certain actions, and the government has a vested interest in your behaviour.
That is a VERY VERY fine line to walk I understand. Drugs are illegal, but sodas aren't? That type discernment is VERY difficult to make. I rely primarily on point 1 when it comes to such disputes. What is the consent of the governed?
 
HP - What I meant was who is in favor of continuing federal prohibition of marijuana. I thought that was pretty clear, but I see the distinction you're making. Do you think being against "this" change because you want a bigger change is cutting off your nose to spite your face? That's what it seems like to me.
 
You reference THC in your argument but less than a page ago told us that govt has no right to ban "any" substance. Make all the arguments about THC you want but frankly, you can't tell me that you have exhausted all medical resources, so please stop using superlatives in your arguments.

Legalizing substances such as crack and heroin won't lead to major problems on that end of the drug spectrum? Leave out the drug wars and politics. You brought up a blanket statement. You need to clarify. What right does the government have to ban anything at any point? And if your argument is that they shouldn't then what is your expectation that the government do about the problems of addiction and crime of addicts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top