United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Most Republicans Oppose Federal Interference With Marijuana Legalization
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2017/02/24/ ... licans-oppose-federal-interfer
Published: Feb 24, 2017
Author: Jacob Sullum
Post Date: 2017-02-24 09:56:06 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 9637
Comments: 60
Yesterday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer suggested that the Justice Department under newly installed Attorney General Jeff Sessions will be more inclined to enforce the federal ban on marijuana in states that have legalized the drug for recreational use. A large majority of Americans, including most Republicans, think that's a bad idea, according to poll numbers released the same day as Spicer's comments. Answering a question from an Arkansas reporter wondering how the DOJ will respond to that state's new medical marijuana law, Spicer said "there's two distinct issues here: medical marijuana and recreational marijuana." He reiterated President Trump's support for laws that allow patients to use marijuana for symptom relief, which 28 states have enacted. Spicer also noted that Congress has repeatedly approved a spending rider that restrains the DOJ from taking action against medical marijuana suppliers in those states. But he said "there is a big difference between that and recreational marijuana," which eight states have legalized, and predicted there will be "greater enforcement" of the federal ban in those states under Sessions, saying "they are going to continue to enforce the laws on the books with respect to recreational marijuana." While Spicer emphasized the difference between medical and recreational marijuana, he overlooked a more important distinction: between opposing state laws that allow recreational use of marijuana and supporting federal intervention aimed at overriding them. That distinction is clear in the latest Quinnipiac University poll, which finds that 71 percent of Americans "oppose the government enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana." By comparison, 59 percent think marijuana "should be made legal in the United States." That means many Americans who oppose legalization nevertheless think states should be free to adopt that policy. A disproportionate number of those people are members of Trump's party: While only 35 percent of Republicans in the Quinnipiac poll supported marijuana legalization, 55 percent opposed federal interference with it. A CBS News poll conducted last April found even stronger Republican opposition to the sort of meddling Spicer predicted. Asked if "laws regarding whether the use of marijuana is legal" should be "determined by the federal government" or "left to each individual state government to decide," 70 percent of Republicans said the latter, compared to 55 percent of Democrats (who as usual were more likely to favor legalization). These results make sense to the extent that conservatives take seriously their avowed commitment to federalism, which Trump also claims to support. At the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump said he favored medical marijuana but had concerns about broader legalization, a decision he nevertheless said should be left to the states. "If they vote for it, they vote for it," he said. Trump confirmed that position at a 2015 rally in Nevada: "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state by state." Sessions, a former Alabama senator, also pays lip service to federalism. After the death of William Rehnquist in 2005, Sessions gave a floor speech in which he praised the chief justice for recognizing the limits of federal power: He understood that the Federal Government, through the Commerce Clause, has broad power, but there are limits to the reach of the Commerce Clause. It does not cover every single matter the United States Senate may desire to legislate on, to the extent that the federal government controls even simple, discreet actions within a State. He reestablished a respect for state law and state sovereignty through a number of his federalism opinions. In 2013 Sessions cosponsored the Restoring the 10th Amendment Act, which would have facilitated lawsuits by state officials challenging regulations they believe exceed the powers the Constitution grants to the federal government. As the introduction to that bill explained, "The 10th Amendment assures that the people of the United States, and each sovereign State in the Union of States, have, and have always had, rights that the Federal Government may not usurp." But Sessions's support for federalism does not extend to marijuana policy. During his confirmation hearings, Sessions was hazy on his plans for marijuana enforcement. But he is an old-fashioned drug warrior who complained about the Obama administration's prosecutorial restraint in states that have legalized marijuana, saying "the Department of Justice needs to be clear" that "marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized." When the subject is marijuana, it seems, Sessions does not recognize any "limits to the reach of the Commerce Clause." In that respect Sessions outdoes one of the most famous anti-marijuana crusaders in U.S. history. Harry Anslinger, who ran the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962, pushed the states and Congress to ban marijuana by claiming the plant turned people into rapists and murderers. Like Sessions, he was not a stickler for facts or logic. But even Anslinger did not go so far as to claim that the federal government had the authority to impose marijuana prohibition on recalcitrant states. "There are no Federal laws on the growth or use of marijuana, the plant being grown so easily that there is almost no interstate commerce in it," The New York Times reported in 1931. "Mr. Anslinger said the government under the Constitution cannot dictate what may be grown within individual States." The most straightforward way to stop Sessions from cracking down on state-licensed marijuana businesses, assuming Trump does not plan to keep his campaign promise, is for Congress to pass the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act, which Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) reintroduced a few weeks ago. The bill, which so far has 14 cosponsors, half of them Republicans, would add a single sentence to the Controlled Substances Act: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this subchapter related to marihuana shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State laws relating to the production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana." Rohrabacher's bill would not be necessary if federal officials respected the Constitution. But they don't, so it is. Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a nationally syndicated columnist. A DOJ crackdown on state-licensed cannabusinesses would be contrary to public opinion, Trump's promises, and the Constitution.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-17) not displayed.
.
.
.
#18. To: misterwhite (#16)
BTW, fresh polling FWIW. HotAir: Quinnipiac poll: 71% oppose enforcing federal marijuana laws in states where the drug is legal The key stat (note how it splits by age):
Pot is a disease.
Fake polls.
You and sneakypete were pretty hostile to Trump. I'm sure that has been happening with millions across the country.
Alcoholism is a disease. Lung cancer from tobacco is a disease. Yet we love to tax them and let people ruin their lives and die from them decade after decade. Pot is demonstrably far less harmful, yet it is considered same-as-heroin.
I live in one of the Reddest states. Overall, 60-40 for Trump in 2016. In my area of the state, 70-30. So I can be no more than an overvote for Trump in terms of the electoral college. And the popular vote is a consolation prize for the loser. In 2020, as in 2016, Trump will lose at least 45 states before he has to worry about losing my state. At least, that is the historical voting record going back to the Sixties. I think Pete is living in a 2016 Trump state that was very close. So his vote might actually matter in 2020, assuming he's interested in voting for Trump then. However you do give pete plenty of reasons here to consider not voting for Trump as a form of revenge on you, Stone. The one vote on this entire forum that is in a vital state for Trump and you do your best to piss him off and give him reasons to hold a grudge against you (and your candidate). Not so smart IMO.
So how are the people who support medical marijuana -- but not recreational marijuana -- supposed to respond in that survey? How about a poll that simply asks the question, "Do you support the nationwide legalization of recreational marijuana?" Why do they always have to couch it in conditional and contradictory terms? Well, we know why.
Not near as many as pete is giving others the reason to vote FOR Trump.
I think there are a lot of fake polls and that poll quality has dropped sharply. The rise on online/Facebook polling, the party bias in selecting pollees, the liberal bias of the big media outlets who pay for these polls and want them to make Happy Thoughts for their lib subscribers, fear by conservatives that any poll answer could come back to haunt them, etc. But on a question like this, I think it is more accurate overall. It is far less high stakes. And a variety of polls have shown pretty similar results in recent years. I just don't see that much obsessing over pot among conservatives, compared to immigration or sodomy marriage or out-of-control federal agencies or a whole range of other issues. And I do live in a state that is unhappy to border one of these legal recreational pot states so it does get some attention. And a lot of yawns from the public overall. You mostly hear things like, "I don't want to pay to jail all these people passing through our state with their little stashes". At $30K/year for each conviction, it isn't hard to understand that they don't want to lock up hundreds of people a day. We would be sunk entirely if we tried such enforcement measures. Our gov and legislature are still unhappy but the state isn't up in arms at all. Around here, people are a lot more hot about the ongoing meth epidemic among a surprising number of the younger people. In the end, people here just don't consider pot as dangerous as oxycodone and other legal opiates or meth or even alcohol or tobacco. I think that is true across the country. This polling conforms to that. And no one wants to pay to lock up pot users or even the growers and pot shop people. Even if you, for instance, raid every pot shop in Colorado and arrest all staff and all the growers, what will be the result? Supplying pot will result in gang wars over drug turf, the Mexican cartels will profit from dominating the market again (since their product is now second-rate pot and has to be smuggled). And you'd be adding tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of people to the federal prison systems and a lot more to state prison systems. Given the sorry financial condition of the states generally and of the federal government with its $20T debt, just how much Prohibition do you think you can afford? We've crossed that Rubicon. And we are not going back. So sit back and light a doobie and enjoy the apocalypse in style. This country (and this administration) have much bigger fish to fry than starting another doomed war on Reefer Madness.
In the end, there really is little difference between the two. The potheads will all get prescriptions and become small-time dealers for their buds. Beyond that, much of the medical marijuana is consumed for recreational purposes. You can't exactly separate the two. The exception would be the Charlotte's Web variety which is used to treat severe children's epilepsy. If you think the Ninth Circus make a mockery of Trump's executive order on immigration, just wait for the fight if Sessions goes nuts on pot laws.
Uh-huh. And it is still 1955 in your world, isn't it? I'm not sure why I bother to respond. This matter is being settled actuarially, actually has already been settled in that way. Most LF posters (which is only a handful of regulars anyway) are well over 70. I bet you could count on one hand the number of under-60 posters here. I'm one. redleg and Stone and probably Neil are. I'm trying to think of any others who aren't well into Geezerville. Isn't it time for you to go outside and yell at those darn kids to get off your lawn?
It has been demonstrated that ounce for ounce, pot has four times the tar and twice the carcinogens as tobacco. It has been demonstrated that pot is smoked unfiltered, drawn deep into the lungs, and held there. It has been demontrated that joints are smoked down to the last chemically-soaked nanometer. It has been demonstrated that street marijuana can contain aspergillus fungus, salmonella bacteria, and other drugs unknown to the buyer. Marijuana "safety" studies have not even been done -- much less completed and published -- for you to make a definitive statement like that.
And when the people wake up to that well-stated fact, they will turn against medical marijuana also.
Blah-blah-blah, blah-blah. You are living in the Fifties. You don't know anything about the modern pot industry. People are eating consumables, using vape pens with hash oil, using electric pipes that don't ignite the pot. No ignition, no stinky clothes or stinky houses, very little or no residue in pipes, etc. Smoking of any kind is pretty unpopular with the young people. And only redneck kids still smoke cigarettes, at least around here. The other remaining smokers here are all over 40 and are just the holdouts.
No, they haven't. It's been going on already for some time. Most such "prescriptions" are anything but. And that is priced into this issue with the voters already.
Exactly. Now, I'm not for keeping weed illegal. It's a waste of time policing it... but let's be honest, for the most part, medical weed is bullshit. A foot in the door for the potheads to get recreational weed passed. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
If a patient has a verifiable condition like epilepsy, cancer, MS, etc., I am supportive of their treating physician writing an actual prescription for the use of marijuana cannabinoids to alleviate their symptoms. Unfortunately, 90% of the "patients" are existing pot users who get their "recommendation" from some quack in order to treat their "pain" by smoking dope. Their actions make a joke of the program, a mockery of the rule of law, and are an affront to the kind-hearted people who support it.
That's all it ever was, and they even admit it. You can't find one medical organization that supports smoked marijuana as medicine. Not. One. At best, they say more research is needed.
I agree. And they probably account for 5% of all users.
You're correct in many of the observations you've brought to bear on this topic. It's always an education to read your posts. Lots of bad habits are more than just bad habits. They are destructive not just on an individual basis. They're also immensely costly when multiplied in the millions. My beef is the way we've been sold on yet another bad idea, as if we weren't already beset with a whole bunch of them. There is a faction abroad that is bent on selling us really bad ideas, and that faction is quite good at it. Pot smoking and the use of associated psychoactive stuff is a problem that, not very long ago, we didn't have to face. At least at any significant level. I've known quite a lot of people growing up that started out with this practice who've ended up badly. They started out with herb and got into more serious kinds of abuse. Some of them are not with us any more. I could tell you a lot of stories, but I'll spare you that. I'm sure that most of us here could fill in the blanks. It seems to me that pot is a problem without a solution. There may be a sort of resolution however where we try to divorce pot use from more destructive habits by ending prohibition. But, like alcohol, it will still be a problem. In short, I'm not good with it. I always discourage pot when I talk to kids.
We have so many bigger fish to fry. Legal opiates like oxycontin, the heroin and fetanyl epidemic, the ongoing meth crisis, molly, anabolic steroids, etc. Not to mention all the designer drugs by renegade chemists waiting in the wings. You outlaw one, they just release the next one to sell legally. We need sensible priorities. It's shocking how many people are dying from opiates or running up massive hospital costs from overdoses. In some parts of the country, more people are dying from that than car wrecks or gun-related deaths (homicides and suicides). I think a lot of police do have a perspective like yours. They certainly don't like pot use but they know we have much bigger fish to fry and a crisis in enforcement on many more important issues.
You would be very surprised, I think. Unlike you, I know some of these people personally. Here's a stealth unit for hash oil that disguises as an asthma inhaler. They also have little vape pens (1/4" diameter, 5" long with battery. Here's are the most popular units for vaporizing pot without burning it. There's a bunch of these around. They are all very small, very portable. No burning, no tars or other chemicals from burning, no stinky clothes or house. Even the old dirty hippies have given up on joints and pipes. Those are yesteryear's pot smokers. These electrics are the future 'cause the young people hate smoking of any kind. YouBoob is chock full of similar videos.
Sure. And alcohol and tobacco? How about dangerous sports? Does liberty top your agenda or safety? As with tobacco and alcohol, the single best solution is to educate against them at a young age. Going back to the failed War On Drugs is no solution. It never worked. And it has only gotten worse. Pot doesn't even register when compared to opiates (legal and illegal) or to alcohol or tobacco.
People are determined to get high, regardless of consequences. Some people cannot be deterred. It is a mistake to think that what will deter you will deter all persons. Just as you are probably not deterred from committing murder by the homicide laws but because you are a peaceful and law-abiding person. But a lot of people simply do not see the drug laws the same as they see laws against murder and against child molesters and financial fraud.
We need sensible priorities I agree there are worse crimes... but just as pot is a stepping stone to illegal narcotic use, pot arrests are stepping stones to the bigger fish. As far as priorities, I understand that... but a good LE agency will expect their personnel to enforce ALL laws, equally. Anything less is a slippery slope. After all, I think what you are suggesting, is the same ideology we've taken as a nation with illegal aliens... and look at the mess we are in now by focusing on other border threat priorities. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
A nice ideal but I don't think you can prove that is what actually happens in practice. Police agencies constantly emphasize enforcement of some crimes over others. And the DA's are even more selective with plea-bargaining or outright refusing to prosecute a whole range of crimes. I lived in a rural county once where we lost sheriff after sheriff who resigned in disgust because the prosecutor refused to prosecute almost any crime, even serious crimes with indisputable evidence. It was beyond belief if you didn't see it firsthand.
I agree those devices are being used. I'm simply saying their usage is small compared to people who use joints and pipes and bongs.
I don't know of any law that will stop a person from violating it. The law sets a standard by which society agrees to live. That's all it does. Because 8% of the people violate the law doesn't mean we should change it.
I agree. I think people who distribute heroin to kids are much worse than murders, child molesters, and people who commit financial fraud.
I know only a handful of users and what they say. They use these modern electrics, not joints or pipes or bongs or hookahs. And they all rave over the hash oil vaping sticks. Maybe I just know a higher class of dope-smoking hippies than you do. : )
If this polling is anywhere near accurate, you might have real trouble finding juries to convict, no matter what the evidence is. I anticipate jury nullification on a large scale if they attempt it.
Personally, I favor random drug testing of all students, right down into elementary classes. Steroids, opiates, pot, tobacco, the whole gamut. And go hard after any suppliers. You could do a lot more to keep kids safe. We could have always done a lot better than we have. We did lots of things that seemed to make sense but that were ultimately counterproductive. I've always believed that outcomes are greatly improved if you just keep kids away from drugs/drinking/smoking/gambling until they are at least 18. Better yet, 21. And, no, I don't care if they've enlisted in the military. I still wouldn't favor letting them do those things. I also oppose allowing kids to have any sexual relationship with anyone more than a year older or younger and I would punish it harshly, at least until age 18. I also would not allow anyone to drop out of school prior to 18. And I would never parole any criminal who hadn't completed high school course work and gotten a diploma in prison. I'm very strict on some things, very libertarian on others.
Juries to convict of what? Violating federal laws against the growing, distribution, and selling of marijuana for recreational use? I don't anticipate any trouble finding that federal jury nor convincing them to convict.
It's easier to keeps kids away from drugs when drugs are illegal. Legalization implies societal acceptance. As proof, teens use legal alcohol 2:1 over illegal marijuana, despite the fact that marijuana is supposedly easier to get.
I agree with you entirely. However, folks that I know that died from the use of opiates, and indirectly even psychedelics (i.e. through misadventure) started out smoking pot. I was an innocent pleasure. By the way, I had a friend that committed suicide because it interfered badly with the anti-psychotic drugs he was taking. Bad combination. Yes. Problem is that there are forces out there whose job it is to undo all that you can do to educate them. It is a problem without a solution given the current constellation of things.
Yes. And there is no exception for medical marijuana. Under federal law, all marijuana is a Schedule I drug, just like heroin or other opiates and hallucinogenics like psilocybin and peyote and LSD. No exceptions. So you don't get to make your own exceptions to the law. If you want to prosecute under the law, lock up the epileptic kids and their parents, the MS people, the chemotherapy patients, the glaucoma sufferers, etc. All the same under the current law.
But it isn't easier to get. You honestly think that pot is as easy to come by in Hooterville as it is in the big cities? It just isn't.
And they didn't have other exposure to possible "gateway drugs"? For instance, many of the new heroin and fetanyl addicts were originally addicted to opiate painkillers like oxycontin. Then the feds had a big crackdown on doctors prescribing these opiates (which became so common that we now see ads for a drug to alleviate opiate-induced constipation). We never had so much prescribed powerful opiates like this even a decade ago. When their prescriptions to oxycontin and other opiates was withdrawn, they turned to heroin and fetanyl. So far, I haven't heard of any of these opiate addicts using marijuana as a gateway drug. You're supposing that legal alcohol never is a gateway drug and that illegal marijuana always is. I know this is commonly believed but it is wrong. It was always an incorrect assumption. It is also not that uncommon for people to jump right to narcotics without smoking pot. And having used alcohol is also more common for narcotics users than using pot. And if they used both alcohol and pot before they used narcotics, then why is marijuana the gateway drug and not alcohol? People become drug users by many routes, some of them legal. BTW, do you entirely oppose the use of anabolic steroids, illegal in every country unless prescribed? They routinely cause terrible health problems and strokes and heart attacks in relatively youthful men. 30 or 40 or 50, not unusual among the bodybuilders and wrestlers and wannabes. Hardly a year goes by without someone famous in these circles dying at a very early age for people so athletic. They pose quite a hazard for young people who are trying to look like some bodybuilder or fitness model or just get some chicks. How many people will we need to lock up? You wanna pay for all that? It seems that the states and the feds are doing everything to free all the non-violent criminals, not add more convicts to the system.
Laws aren't created to stop crime... that's libtard fantasy and the fairy dust libtards sprinkle all over the sheeple to make them feel safe at the hands of career libtards. Laws are passed so we have a written standard to PUNISH people for doing things that victimize the populace in any multitude of ways. This is why the answer to the "failed drug war" argument by our vile hippie drug addict loving scumbag posters, isn't to eliminate drug laws. Then we still have the victimization and no way to punish for it. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You're right. Unless you fine or confine the violators, it doesn't matter what laws you write. The law can never be more than what you are willing to enforce, no matter how much money you throw at the problems.
Absolutely correct. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Comments (59 - 60) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#19. To: Tooconservative (#15)
#20. To: Tooconservative (#18)
#21. To: Tooconservative (#17)
I see no signs of rising support. Not yet.
#22. To: randge (#19)
Pot is a disease.
#23. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#21)
You and sneakypete were pretty hostile to Trump. I'm sure that has been happening with millions across the country.
#24. To: Tooconservative (#18)
#25. To: Tooconservative (#23)
"However you do give pete plenty of reasons here to consider not voting for Trump"
#26. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#20)
Fake polls.
#27. To: misterwhite (#24)
So how are the people who support medical marijuana -- but not recreational marijuana -- supposed to respond in that survey?
#28. To: misterwhite (#25)
Not near as many as pete is giving others the reason to vote FOR Trump.
#29. To: Tooconservative (#22)
"Pot is demonstrably far less harmful ..."
#30. To: Tooconservative (#27)
"The potheads will all get prescriptions and become small-time dealers for their buds."
#31. To: misterwhite (#29)
It has been demonstrated that ounce for ounce, pot has four times the tar and twice the carcinogens as tobacco.
#32. To: misterwhite (#30)
And when the people wake up to that well-stated fact, they will turn against medical marijuana also.
#33. To: Tooconservative (#27)
Beyond that, much of the medical marijuana is consumed for recreational purposes. You can't exactly separate the two.
#34. To: Tooconservative (#27)
"The exception would be the Charlotte's Web variety which is used to treat severe children's epilepsy."
#35. To: GrandIsland (#33)
"A foot in the door for the potheads to get recreational weed passed."
#36. To: Tooconservative (#31)
(Edited)
"People are eating consumables, using vape pens with hash oil, using electric pipes that don't ignite the pot. No ignition, no stinky clothes or stinky houses, very little or no residue in pipes, etc."
#37. To: Tooconservative (#22)
#38. To: GrandIsland (#33)
Now, I'm not for keeping weed illegal. It's a waste of time policing it... but let's be honest, for the most part, medical weed is bullshit. A foot in the door for the potheads to get recreational weed passed.
#39. To: misterwhite (#36)
I agree. And they probably account for 5% of all users.
#40. To: randge (#37)
I've known quite a lot of people growing up that started out with this practice who've ended up badly. They started out with herb and got into more serious kinds of abuse. Some of them are not with us any more. I could tell you a lot of stories, but I'll spare you that. I'm sure that most of us here could fill in the blanks.
It seems to me that pot is a problem without a solution. There may be a sort of resolution however where we try to divorce pot use from more destructive habits by ending prohibition. But, like alcohol, it will still be a problem.
#41. To: misterwhite (#34)
Unfortunately, 90% of the "patients" are existing pot users who get their "recommendation" from some quack in order to treat their "pain" by smoking dope. Their actions make a joke of the program, a mockery of the rule of law, and are an affront to the kind-hearted people who support it.
#42. To: Tooconservative (#38)
(Edited)
We have so many bigger fish to fry. Legal opiates like oxycontin, the heroin and fetanyl epidemic, the ongoing meth crisis, molly, anabolic steroids, etc. Not to mention all the designer drugs by renegade chemists waiting in the wings. You outlaw one, they just release the next one to sell legally.
#43. To: GrandIsland (#42)
As far as priorities, I understand that... but a good LE agency will expect their personnel to enforce ALL laws, equally.
#44. To: Tooconservative (#39)
#45. To: Tooconservative (#41)
"It is a mistake to think that what will deter you will deter all persons."
#46. To: Tooconservative (#41)
"But a lot of people simply do not see the drug laws the same as they see laws against murder and against child molesters and financial fraud."
#47. To: misterwhite (#44)
I agree those devices are being used. I'm simply saying their usage is small compared to people who use joints and pipes and bongs.
#48. To: misterwhite (#45)
Because 8% of the people violate the law doesn't mean we should change it.
#49. To: misterwhite (#46)
I agree. I think people who distribute heroin to kids are much worse than murders, child molesters, and people who commit financial fraud.
#50. To: Tooconservative (#48)
"If this polling is anywhere near accurate, you might have real trouble finding juries to convict, no matter what the evidence is."
#51. To: Tooconservative (#49)
#52. To: Tooconservative (#40)
(Edited)
Going back to the failed War On Drugs is no solution. It never worked. And it has only gotten worse. Pot doesn't even register when compared to opiates (legal and illegal) or to alcohol or tobacco.
As with tobacco and alcohol, the single best solution is to educate against them at a young age.
#53. To: misterwhite (#50)
Juries to convict of what? Violating federal laws against the growing, distribution, and selling of marijuana for recreational use?
#54. To: misterwhite (#51)
As proof, teens use legal alcohol 2:1 over illegal marijuana, despite the fact that marijuana is supposedly easier to get.
#55. To: randge (#52)
(Edited)
However, folks that I know that died from the use of opiates, and indirectly even psychedelics (i.e. through misadventure) started out smoking pot.
#56. To: misterwhite (#45)
I don't know of any law that will stop a person from violating it. The law sets a standard by which society agrees to live. That's all it does.
#57. To: GrandIsland (#56)
Laws aren't created to stop crime... that's libtard fantasy and the fairy dust libtards sprinkle all over the sheeple to make them feel safe at the hands of career libtards. Laws are passed so we have a written standard to PUNISH people for doing things that victimize the populace in any multitude of ways.
#58. To: Tooconservative (#57)
Unless you fine or confine the violators, it doesn't matter what laws you write. The law can never be more than what you are willing to enforce, no matter how much money you throw at the problems.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]