What struck me was if they legalized it and let the parents take care of "Billy to be puffing on his bong," then they would have to still deal with cartels.

But it would be the IRS dealing with cartels like Lorilard, RJ Reynolds Tobacco, Anheuser-Busch.

And maybe the DOJ's Anti-trust division when laws are made up that stop private growers.

Wow, talk about rambling sentences. I could not follow what he was trying to say.
I'm debating to say either 'he should eat a brownie to calm him down and talk rationally' or 'he looks like he's on something else'.

Wow, talk about rambling sentences. I could not follow what he was trying to say. -- Joe J at January 19, 2014 4:24 PM

With the prep of Amy's comments about money, you could tell he was doing his best to step around saying money and the nanny state is the best thing. But that was the general intent.

Notice how our California Senator Feinstein jumped in to support the status quo. She should give somebody else a shot at the office. She's had her run.

"Not one person I know who smokes pot was deterred by the laws against it."

So, they smoke it openly?

Probably not.

Try these on for size:
"Not one person I know who smokes crack was deterred by the laws against it."
"Not one person I know who snorts cocaine was deterred by the laws against it."
"Not one person I know who does heroin was deterred by the laws against it."

Two Wrongs remains a fallacy. You have not supported the legalization of anything; rather, you have stated that you know people who break the law and do nothing about it.

What wonderful citizens these are!

Meanwhile:
Please lobby for a testable standard of intoxication for any drug you support for legalization. In the absence of such a standard, which has been proven necessary for employer and legal action in the case of alcohol, no person may be effectively prevented from operating critical equipment while under the influence.

Please pay attention. Enforcement has been proven necessary.

Two Wrongs remains a fallacy. You have not supported the legalization of anything; rather, you have stated that you know people who break the law and do nothing about it. -- Radwaste at January 19, 2014 5:35 PM

And your argument is that prohibition works? If it did why are there hundreds of thousands in prison and the numerous fines, probation system and all the rest if laws actually stopped it?

The Drug Wars basically jumped the shark when police and doctors in New Mexico effectively sodomized, through a cavity search, enemas and a colonoscopy, some dude they stopped for running a stop sign when they though he might have drugs up his butt.

Colorado and Washington have legalized marijuana, and so far, they have not been wiped off the map by reefer madness, as far as I know.

Let's just legalize pot, already, no matter what my fellow conservatives say.

I've said it before, the only argument you need for legalization is that prohibition does not work. We've had drug prohibition for decades, it costs us billions if not trillions of dollars, and people are still using drugs. People who are in prison for drug offences, in cages surrounded by armed guards, can still get drugs.

While I think pot should be legal everywhere, I don't think "they're going to do it anyway" is a compelling argument. People are going to rape and murder and steal cars with or without laws prohibiting these things, but we don't see a rush of people insisting we abolish these laws. If no one ever did these things, we wouldn't need laws in the first place.

The best argument for whether something should be a law is, "Are we better off with this law than without it?" States that are legalizing pot will find out soon enough.

People are going to rape and murder and steal cars with or without laws prohibiting these things, but we don't see a rush of people insisting we abolish these laws. If no one ever did these things, we wouldn't need laws in the first place. -- MonicaP at January 20, 2014 11:59 AM

The difference is that consuming drugs will only hurt that person, not anyone else. I.e. sitting in the basement and doing lines of coke doesn't harm you or me. Coking and public activity may be different. Just like an alcoholic sitting in a bar and getting drunk off his ass, but taking a taxi home is not an issue. Trying to drive is another story.

Rape, murder, robbery harms other people.

“Don’t do drugs because if you do drugs you’ll go to prison, and drugs are really expensive in prison.”
– John Hardwick (1853-1915) Australian Politician

And:

"Who Makes More Money....?"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/altered_state/2014/01/colorado_marijuana_legalization_how_lucrative_is_it_to_be_a_legal_weed_dealer.html

It's two pages long.

Plenty of thoughtful and funny comments follow.

jaylemeux quoted from Slate:

" 'Starbucks, another company that deals in mind-altering, plant-based substances, regularly has gross profit margins of 57 percent, nearly twice that of Brandon’s dispensary.'

"FINALLY someone compares marijuana to a substance of comparably destructive potential. Thank you.

"That said, the details of this article about how excessive regulatory fees and Fed auditing make legal sales less profitable than illegal sales aren't proof that the illicit market is more profitable than the licit market. They're proof that the illicit market is more profitable than the licit market *as we've structured it.* If marijuana wasn't regulated like a substance that might explode in your face if you handle it wrong, expenses just might come down."

And Banjo Walker said:

"OK, I'm lost, someone help me here. One of the biggest arguments for legalizing recreational marijuana was the idea that it would be taxed to hell and provide a new revenue stream for governments (taxes and fees). Now that it's legalized, they're crying because of taxes and fees. Really?!"

While I think pot should be legal everywhere, I don't think "they're going to do it anyway" is a compelling argument.

Fair enough but then again "because I said so" is hardly a valid basis for a law.

Neither are any of these

“Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.”

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

“Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim’s life in Los Angeles?

… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record.”

The best argument for whether something should be a law is, "Are we better off with this law than without it?" States that are legalizing pot will find out soon enough.

Who is "we" and how do they define "better?" The DEA and the prison industry are better off, as they get more money.

No the best basis for a law is to determine the cost in personal liberty vs the benefit in public safety.

REAL safety like not dumping rat poison in the river and not like fondling toddlers to try and find TNT