Marijuana decriminalization bill gaining support in Congress

[DrivenMind]

not a republican at all. I am a conservative.

Big surprise there... You do drive a lowered American SUV after all.

the DEA isnt going anywhere whether or weed is legal, but the govt would be larger if it was legalized for the regulatory bodies that would need to be set in place.

How would it need to be larger? Law enforcement agencies across the country already have huge portions of their precincts dedicated to busting those harmlessly "crazed" marijuana smokers. It would take a lot less resources and man power to make a few regulatory laws regarding the sale and distribution of cannabis, than it would to keep trying to push prohibition, and forced prosecution on a substance that more than 50% of the countries population has tried.

again, legalizing it would mean more money out of your pocket, not less.

Wrong. It costs $19,000 annually per inmate in the US. Considering in 2006 alone, 800,000 people were arrested for "marijuana" violations that seems like a pretty quick way to save some bank. Not to mention the businesses, and industries that could be created if hemp were allowed to create some competition within the textile industry. Do you really believe that it costs the government less to hunt, and prosecute violators? You realize despite the aging war on drugs cannabis use is at an all time "high". Clearly the drug war isn't working.

Since 1992, six million tax paying Americans have been locked up for deciding to smoke a little weed. Does that number not sound outrageous to you?

legalizing it would increase the power of the cartels. Not only would their product be legal, but it would also be more widely used. This would eliminate 1 more level of secrecy in the chain.

Wrong again. He's an unlikely idea, what if it turned them into legitimate business people, who contributed more of thier profits into taxes to help fuel our economy. Just because a drug is legal doesn't mean it's any more widely abused. I wonder if the people over at Budwiser were called "cartels" during alcohol prohibition.

And could you also explain to me, where in the medical industry they require patients to ingest alcohol. Or inhale cigarette delivered nicotine.

this is a joke right?

Yea, the war on drugs has been a joke since the foul criminal Nixon introduced it in 1971.

"This scourge will stop!"
No it won't. You'll just blow a lot of our money trying to stop it.

We arent the netherlands though, the US has a tendency of taking any simple freedom and abusing it to the point that its legality should be questioned.

Did you just say that? It's not a freedom if you can get arrested for doing it. How can you abuse a freedom, that isn't a actually freedom? It's legality should be questioned because it ISN'T a freedom.

the added costs of regulation would easily surpass the taxes added. Then add in the fact that law enforcement would have no leverage on the users so they can work up the chain to the dealers and suppliers.

Law enforcement has the ultimate leverage on dealers already anyway. It's called a prison sentence. You keep saying the added costs of regulation would surpass the taxes added, as if you're deliberately ignoring the fact that there would be a reduction in costs when the government isn't spending it's time prosecuting almost a million extra non-violent "offenders".

Heres another one for you. A smoker is paying $4.00 for a pack of Marlboros from the gas station. One day he learns that Joe down on the corner has illegally packaged Marlboros for $2.00 a pack. Where do you think the smoker is going for his next high?

Depends. If the smoker knows he's going to get a reliable quality product from the gas station every time, why would he waste his time sourcing out another distributor just to save $2 a pack? Most people would pay the extra $2 just to avoid the risk of having to deal with the potential law involvement.

I agree. I could also say the same thing for any number of illegal activities. I will bring up child porn because I just learned a bit about it on Friday. 10k+ arrests are made every year for possession of child porn. Law Enforcement knows who several of the sources are, but because they are overseas they cant be touched. Should child porn be legal also because there will always be a supply and demand for it?
Yes I know its a drastic leap from weed to child porn, but it is the same concept.

No it's not, that's absolutely ****ing ridiculous.

wrong, most drug related crimes are robberies and burglaries so they addicts can get the money for their next fix. The number of people killed as retaliation is barely worth mentioning in comparison.

Source your information. This is blantant intellectual dishonesty. You're talking about junkies. Usually it's the opiate addicts that behave this way. Not pot heads. You think a "lazy, unmotivated" pot head is going to commit a burglary so he can get smoke?

I live in the real world, you are the one in the fantasy world.

This is false too. You might exist in the real world, but you're living in the conservative propoganda day dream.

[Total_Blender]

And could you also explain to me, where in the medical industry they require patients to ingest alcohol.
.

Alcohol is administered in cases of antifreeze poisoning. It is also one of the main ingredients in over the counter cough remedies. And its been proven in many studies that red wine is good for people with heart disease.

But all that is beside the main point

[The12lber]

Yea, the war on drugs has been a joke since the foul criminal Nixon introduced it in 1971.

In all fairness, overall, Nixon was in actuallity probably the best postwar (you know, the big one) President of 20th century.

Did you just say that? It's not a freedom if you can get arrested for doing it. How can you abuse a freedom, that isn't a actually freedom? It's legality should be questioned because it ISN'T a freedom.

Yeah, that's the whole deal with America. We have freedoms here, not privileges. You don't ban things simply because something is considered immoral by a select few, but it can't logically be explained why. You don't ban things because said things in question might be dangerous to them Smoking is literally sentencing yourself to premature death, I don't see a ban on tobacco. People are given the responsibility to make their own choices here. If people don't feel comfortable for this, they should look up Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism on Wikipedia and move accordingly. China and North Korea, especially, would be lovely choices

A short list of things that would have to be banned if we followed this rule (banning things that are potentially unsafe to the participant or considered immoral by some) in all cases
-Bicycles
-Motorcycles
-Cars
-Planes
-Swimming (you could drown)
-Pleasurecraft (your boat could sink, see above)
-Christianity
-Islam
-Jeudaism
-Pre-marital sex
-Homosexuality
-Buttsecks
-Fellatio
-****, everything but missionary
-Unprotected sex
-Standing up
-Fishing
-Hunting
-Eating meat (meat is murder, PETA told me so)
-Lying down