Answering the Libertarian argument for drug legalization
 

Please forgive any offense because I am branching this discussion off of the Dr. Dobson discussion. It really is a new topic worthy of its own thread.

Legitimate criticisms on how drug laws are enforced should be separated from the questions of whether drugs are illegal in the first place, which drugs are illegal and for who are they illegal. Suppose that laws against shoplifting were brutally enforced with blatant disregard for Constitutional rights, would this support a case to legalize shoplifting?

There are certainly a lot of problems with current drug laws and their enforcement. Among these: Most federal drug laws are an overreach of federal power far beyond congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce. In most cases, drug laws should be a purely state issue. Furthermore, laws allowing agencies to confiscate property before anyone is convicted of a crime perpetuate and encourage bad behavior on the part of government officials. Finally, the US Constitution is the supreme law if the land, and government employees who violate it should face stiffer penalties (as corrupt officials) than the alleged offenders who they are purportedly trying to catch.

My case that drugs should remain illegal is framed around three basic ideas:
1. Many recreational drugs do harm that goes far beyond the individual user and greatly increase the likelihood that the individual user will become an undue burden on his employer, his family, his insurers, his landlord, his creditors, other associations (school, sports, religious), and society as a whole. Making and enforcing effective laws against driving under the influence is a particular challenge.
2. Laws train the conscience of young people, and many teenagers approach adulthood with the notion that if an act is truly wrong or dangerous, then it is against the law. Once legalized, there will be many more users both because the conscience will more easily accept drug use, and because drugs are more widely available.
3. As a practical matter, substances that are legal for adults are much more easily acquired by minors. Laws against alcohol and nicotine use by minors are very rarely enforced, and I would hate for those providing marijuana to children to face no more penalty or effective enforcement than those providing cigarettes.

In a libertarian utopia where insurers, parents, sports teams, schools, employers, and other interested parties could contractually insist on drug testing, and there would remain criminal penalties for fraud or theft by deception for lying/cheating on drug tests, a society might still maintain sufficient safeguards. But legalizing recreational drugs in the current nanny state where many insurers, employers, traffic enforcement, and other parties which have interests in limiting exposure to drug users cannot fully protect their interests is a likely disaster.

I remember a high school principal once almost fired me (as a math teacher working in the school), because I overheard students in class talking about their weekend drug use, I told their parents, and I suggested their parents use widely available at home drug tests to monitor and bring correction to their children's behavior. I am confident I would have been fired had I not resigned first. 80% of the seniors at this high school were regular recreational drug users. The school resource officer, the principal, the school nurse, and most of the teachers either did not care, or had been manipulated into not acting by their desire for a paycheck. Effectively teaching math, physics, and chemistry was impossible.

Any path to drug legalization certainly needs to empower any and all associates of possible drug users (parents, schools, sports teams, employers, coaches, traffic enforcement, insurers, etc.) to implement effective drug testing programs (if they choose) as a condition of ongoing association. I would certainly want my daughter's prom date to pee in a cup before allowing my daughter to ride in his car! I would also want our military to retain the power to restrict drugs under the UCMJ.

I am curious if your view of libertarian ideals would grant all associates of possible drug users the rights to choose and limit their associations (if they wished) by insisting on drug testing as a condition of association. After all, what justification is there in limiting civil contracts not to permit drug testing under any relationship where one of the parties feels it may be necessary or desirable?

Let them smoke their knee caps off if they want too. Darwinism at its finest. Prohibition failed just as the current drug policies are failing miserably.

My case that drugs should remain illegal is framed around three basic ideas:
1. Many recreational drugs do harm that goes far beyond the individual user and greatly increase the likelihood that the individual user will become an undue burden on his employer, his family, his insurers, his landlord, his creditors, other associations (school, sports, religious), and society as a whole. Making and enforcing effective laws against driving under the influence is a particular challenge.
2. Laws train the conscience of young people, and many teenagers approach adulthood with the notion that if an act is truly wrong or dangerous, then it is against the law. Once legalized, there will be many more users both because the conscience will more easily accept drug use, and because drugs are more widely available.
3. As a practical matter, substances that are legal for adults are much more easily acquired by minors. Laws against alcohol and nicotine use by minors are very rarely enforced, and I would hate for those providing marijuana to children to face no more penalty or effective enforcement than those providing cigarettes.

In a libertarian utopia where insurers, parents, sports teams, schools, employers, and other interested parties could contractually insist on drug testing, and there would remain criminal penalties for fraud or theft by deception for lying/cheating on drug tests, a society might still maintain sufficient safeguards. But legalizing recreational drugs in the current nanny state where many insurers, employers, traffic enforcement, and other parties which have interests in limiting exposure to drug users cannot fully protect their interests is a likely disaster.

I remember a high school principal once almost fired me (as a math teacher working in the school), because I overheard students in class talking about their weekend drug use, I told their parents, and I suggested their parents use widely available at home drug tests to monitor and bring correction to their children's behavior. I am confident I would have been fired had I not resigned first. 80% of the seniors at this high school were regular recreational drug users. The school resource officer, the principal, the school nurse, and most of the teachers either did not care, or had been manipulated into not acting by their desire for a paycheck. Effectively teaching math, physics, and chemistry was impossible.

Any path to drug legalization certainly needs to empower any and all associates of possible drug users (parents, schools, sports teams, employers, coaches, traffic enforcement, insurers, etc.) to implement effective drug testing programs (if they choose) as a condition of ongoing association. I would certainly want my daughter's prom date to pee in a cup before allowing my daughter to ride in his car! I would also want our military to retain the power to restrict drugs under the UCMJ.

I am curious if your view of libertarian ideals would grant all associates of possible drug users the rights to choose and limit their associations (if they wished) by insisting on drug testing as a condition of association. After all, what justification is there in limiting civil contracts not to permit drug testing under any relationship where one of the parties feels it may be necessary or desirable?[/QUOTE]

Rebuttal. ( only in regards to Cannabis)

1. Wayyyy safer than alcohol. And people should have the right to chose what the do their own body. As far as the burden on employer. How does a person smoking a dobbie on the weekend any different than getting hammered which so many almost seem to encourage. ( not that I have a issue with that do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others )
They already have laws against driving under the influence. DUID. I know 2 people that got duids for weed and they had no magic blow in this test.

2. " What about the children "
Tobacco use and alcohol use among teens had dropped significantly in the last decade through education programs and you didn't have to jail a single adult to protect a child.
It was way easier to get weed in school than booze. You had to corrupt an adult to get booze. Drug dealers don't card.

3. Snitching did no good. Drug test have spawned a whole new class of synthetic drugs that are way more harmful than their natural counterparts.

You can not repeal the law of supply and demand. From kids spinning in circles to get dizzy and light headed to the Heroin addict people want to be intoxicated.

No mandatory minimums for rapist or molesters but are prisons are over run with no violent drug offenders because of these.

Asset forfeiture fuels these bad laws and fuels police corruption. Ie junction Texas and many other places where corrupt cops steal people's money and claim that it had to be from drugs. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Your possessions on the other had are guilty until proven innocent.

And how many of you worked with a good/great guy hard worker did everything right and then smoked a joint and got popped on a UA and people just throw up their hands and say well he shouldn't have been stupid. I saw 2 30 plus year guys lose their jobs at Halliburton like this and everyone was shocked. " you mean that guy does drugs ". People use the argument " my brother was awesome then he smoked weed and now he's a loser " like there is no chance a loser could be in your family. I finish my rant by quoting bill hicks

" Drugs done some good things for us and if you don't believe they did go home take all your records all your CDs And burn them because the people who made that great music that enhanced your life over the years were rrrrrrrreal f)$)(;: high on drugs.

Can't argue that one!...

Willie Nelson
Johnny Cash
Phil Anselmo
Lane from Alice in Chains
Motley Crue (the whole dang group!)
The list goes on and on...

Free the weed!!!!

Could have just posted this I guess.
Even cops say legalize even though they say all drugs. I can advocate meth use but a reform on the punishment is in order. When someone gets busted even once they can lose student loans and it follows them forever they can't get a real job do then what are they to do.

" I went in with bachelor in marijuana and graduated ( jail) with a doctorate in cocaine " - George Jung

Cop Says Legalizing Drugs Will Protect Kids from Gangs http://t.co/umVogAQqV1

I can't ** can't * advocate meth. Sorry about that.

LOL! Thanks for the clarification!

I'm on the fence on legalization of weed and, the effect it would have on kids. See, when I was a kid, we were told NOT to smoke cigarettes and, it was illegal to buy them under 18 years of age. Those two factors (to me, anyway) made it that much more appealing to do it. Yeah, I was a bit of a rebellious kid. Today though, it seems like a good number less kids take to cigarettes and, I know it's still illegal under 18 but, due to education, it's not nearly as "cool" as when I was a youth. I'm not sure that the legalization of weed would make it less or more sensationalized. I think it would be less but, I have no hard data to back that up. Instead, I'm trying to remember the triggers I had as a kid and, seeing it through those eyes.

cmon mg
 

My case that drugs should remain illegal is framed around three basic ideas:
1. Many recreational drugs do harm that goes far beyond the individual user and greatly increase the likelihood that the individual user will become an undue burden on his employer, his family, his insurers, his landlord, his creditors, other associations (school, sports, religious), and society as a whole. Making and enforcing effective laws against driving under the influence is a particular challenge.
2. Laws train the conscience of young people, and many teenagers approach adulthood with the notion that if an act is truly wrong or dangerous, then it is against the law. Once legalized, there will be many more users both because the conscience will more easily accept drug use, and because drugs are more widely available.
3. As a practical matter, substances that are legal for adults are much more easily acquired by minors. Laws against alcohol and nicotine use by minors are very rarely enforced, and I would hate for those providing marijuana to children to face no more penalty or effective enforcement than those providing cigarettes.



I agree with the #1 point about testing for dui of drugs. I don't want someone influenced by coke, weed, or heroin driving around any more than I want someone under the influence of alcohol driving around. I think the lack of an effective analyzer for a "right now" yes/no wether a person is high is the #1 roadblock for drug legalization. Like Clampy said.....smoking a joint on saturday night far less negatively impacts my ability to do my job effectively on monday morning than drinking a 12 pack on sunday evening does. But I can drink the brews because my employer a definitively tell if I am under the influence of alcohol RIGHT NOW.


Your #2 point is something I disagree with. I raise my kids to be moral...not all laws are based on morality. I would much rather a child be able to make decision based on what they think is right or wrong morally, than to have a child follow all laws blindly.

Your #3 point is simply inaccurate. Kids get ticketed and prosecuted all the time for violating alcohol/nicotine laws.

And the thing about making the prom date pee in the cup......are you gonna make him take a breathalizer under this same logic?


BTW MG....I almost always agree with you...just not on this one bruh. Way to many good and potentially productive members of our society are imprisoned for non-violent drug law violations. And I'm sick of footing the bill for that incarceration

Why is marijuana illegal in the first place?

I'll open a beer.

Plenty of things are bad that we don't want our kids to do. I got a little girl coming in December and I don't want her smoking pot until her 20s ( if she chooses to do so & and I hope she doesn't ) but she needs to be able to make an informed choice based on science not fear. Portugal dicrimed all drug use and use went down. Rates of pot use among teens in holiday is lower per capita than us and its widely available. They effectively made pot uncool and not some rebellion symbol. Not to mention the medical use of cannabis in regards to seizures and nausea is unmatched. The fact that Canbabis is in schedule 1 along with heroin is a complete joke.

Don't do this to me man ;)

In short, the highlighted is my suspicion as well. With kids, at least those who acted like me, if it wasn't "bad," it wasn't fun to do. I would likely never have touched it if it weren't such a socially hated substance. Really, from the first time to the last time I ever did it, I didn't care for it. I just did what was "cool." Now, the Dorito company probably hated the day that I decided it wasn't cool any more!:rotfl:

Prohibition of alcohol ended in 1933 prohibition of pot started in 37'. Effectively giving the Prohibitionist new jobs. William Hurst saw hemp as threat to his giant paper mills. Up until 37' hemp was too hard to separate the fibers to make paper so he had nothing to worry about until the invention of the decordicator.
After that Harry Ansliger and hurst made the movie reffer madness and started a smear campaign with such infamous statements like " the devil weed that makes negros seek relations with white women "
I can go on but
In short the answer would be stupidity.

Ha ha. That's the only thing it's a gateway to. Doritos.

And, mass quantities of Dr. Pepper!:work:

MASS QUANTITIES!...You hear me?!:rotfl:

I'm going to put myself on blast here for a minute and say, "Yes, I was somewhat of a follower as a youth." I did take to a less-than-savory crowd for reasons that I still don't understand today. I didn't feel like we were bad people and, for the most part, we weren't. We were just kids that liked to "paint outside of society's lines."

Did we stop at herb use only? No. Many of the guys I ran with, myself included did things that were far more sinister beyond that. I don't believe, not even for a second that one lead to the other though. It was just the times and, place we lived in.

Did these experiences do me any good? Yes and, no. Yes because, I learned some very valuable lessons about life and, the pitfalls that can come with substance abuse. I learned that, even the worst sins(in the eyes of society) doesn't mean you can't still do good for others. No, it did not make me a greater athlete. No, it did not motivate me. It also didn't make me want to rob a store either.

Of all the guys I ran with, more than 50% of us own businesses now and, are doing well with them. Another is the GM for a huge Harley dealer. Two more are operators in plants. Yeah, a couple wound up on the loser train but, I truly don't believe that had anything to do with substance abuse. It had to do with their home life or, lackthereof.

Ahhhhh yes, thank you for the abbreviated version.

I can understand heroin and crystal being illegal, but pot? Come on...

MG, how much pot have you smoked? Have you smoked enough to know that tracking it down can't be any easier than it already is? To be honest, when I was pre 18 and smoking pot, it was waaaaaay easier to get it than it was for me to go get dip and cigarettes. So, I vehemently disagree with the theory that it would become more obtainable to minors if made legal.

It seems the ban is still being upheld by the same types of folks that know nothing about the drug, except for what they heard and read. Exactly the same way the ban came into effect back in the 30's.

Nailed it. Look we can't all be gems but if you let a plant that makes stuff funny and makes good taste good ruin your life then shame on you. That person could have got hooked on anything like cheese burgers / porn or anything. Something like 8% of pop has addictive personality. The phone many of us are typing on made by Steve jobs who occasionally smoked pot and credited some of his creativity to early LSD use. Carl Sagan daily pot smoker I could literally go on for days with smart as hell people who smoked pot. That being said a bunch are losers but that's because they were destine to become losers.

Food taste good * typing too fast over here.

I was hopin you meant *good taste gooder

How many saw Sanja Gupta apologize for furthering marijuana ignorance in the past and then he came out with that documentary that just aired on CNN.
Game changer IMO.

Albert Einstein. A Pure math genius smoked opium. As did many folks in that time .
MJ may be Psychologically addictive to someone w/ an addictive personality.
But so would / could eating twinkies ,playing video games etc.
But i have never seen a physical addiction to marijuana.

If weed was legal Hostess wouldn't have had to file Bankruptcy !!!!
woulda saved the business.

Just put weed In the Twinkie. Problem solved.

Nobody did it so I had to.
Here is the Prohibitionist argument.

http://youtu.be/Uh7l8dx-h8M

Dang....did we change mg's mind?????

Thank you for starting a new topic in regards to this subject, I agree it does merit it's own discussion. I will post this response on the previous thread as well just for some continuity.... but will keep any further discussion on this thread.

Before addressing some of the things below, I want to clarify a bit. When i referred to "legalization" I am speaking of drugs which are considered to be "Soft" i.e. Alcohol, Nicotine, Cannabis / Weed / MJ etc, Mushrooms and like.

So now we can proceed.

As indicated above I have clarified that i take this discussion to be one on the legalization of various "soft" drugs. Although compelling arguments can be made that one should even legalize "hard" drugs i do not believe that this is the correct time or place to discuss those.

To be blunt here MG, there is no comparison between shoplifting, child prostitution, legalized murder or any other violent crime / crime against another person that you care to use as an example.... if you ask why? its because "soft" drug use is a personal decision that can be made by an adult and does not in and of itself cause any harm what so ever to anyone else.

Every other example listed involves one human either physically or monetarily harming another.

Basically i agree with what your saying in this paragraph, The current laws pertaining to "soft" drug use are the very definitions of insanity. When violent person on person crimes (assault & battery, rape, etc) receive lower sentencing due to silly "get tough on drugs" laws, then there is something very very wrong with our system.

Although the current AG has proposed sweeping reforms to how non violent drug offense crimes are handled (by seemingly fast tracking them into treatment programs rather as an alternative to jails) I am viewing these actions as a stopgap attempt to continue the "war" on drugs, and just changing from prison punishment to one where drug counseling programs will be the new benefactors of a massive federal cash infusion. It will kind of make for a somewhat "perfect" storm ... drug war and it's associated cost's will get to continue, and the drug counseling programs will get a huge present under the tree this christmas. If this goes thru expect to start seeing a lot of commercials for "compassionate care for your loved one's suffering from addiction."

On subject #1: Again when discussing "soft" drugs that are currently illegal the exact opposite of what you are stating has been proven on many many different scientific fronts. Whether you want to look at studies conducted here in the states, or one's conducted overseas in countries where "soft" drugs are either legal, or de facto legal. Everything points to the fact that legalization results in lower levels of drug use by residents of that area (although there is some uptick in tourism drug use) lower petty and violent crime rates, in short legalization, regulation, and control help!

The making and enforcing of laws to cover vehicle use, while under the influence have already been done. Therefore they are no longer a challange, IMO it's very similar to Alcohol. You administer a field sobriety test, if the person fails said test they are then required to submit to a drug test to determine THC levels in their sample. Case closed, book 'em Danno.

On subject #2: Again the exact opposite of what your stating has been scientifically studied and proven in test bed countries like Portugal and the Netherlands, as well as many many studies here in the states.

The Netherlands experienced a static level of drug use after legalization of "soft" drugs. After removing the increase in drug use seem by drug tourism. They actually saw a significant reduction in drug use of the local population.

Portugal decriminalized and has not even gone so far as to begin regulation. And they have shown a significant downturn in all (not just soft) drug use. Incidentally HIV infections due to infected needle sharing have all but disappeared.

on Subject #3: Study has shown that making a drug illegal has at best no impact on teenagers desire and ability to obtain the drug. In point of fact most studies show that teenagers tend to rebel rather than conform. I have to ask you here MG, If you are the guardian of a teenager who is choosing to rebel without your permission. Would you prefer that said teen purchase their weed in a enviroment that's controlled and regulated to ensure safety. Or would you prefer that said teen purchase the drug in the "Black Market / Gang Underworld" as they do now.

If you feel that the second option is the better of the two, please in detail explain to me how you feel that it would be the better option.

If it's a case of an "adult" straw purchasing the drug for the minor, please answer the same question in regards to whats more beneficial (legal purchase vs black market)


There is no difference between who is currently insured and is a user of "soft" drugs, and who will be insured as a user of "soft" drugs post legalization. It is none of any insurance, employers, schools, teams, etc parties business what you as a person do with your personal time. None of the above "Sky is falling" issues presented any real concern in other country's who have legalized. Again, the scenario's remain clear. Same as if your intoxicated with alcohol in one of these situations. A person will report that they believe you may be under the influence, your then given a field sobriety test to determine if you are or not, if you fail you have the option to submit to drug test and / or lose your job, team affiliation...etc.

There have been loads of published studies which indicate that a person's capacity to learn is not hampered by reasonable level's of "soft" drug use. Does that mean you can learn if your stoned / drunk off your ***... probably not. But the overwhelming majority of drinkers do not choose to be drunk 24 hrs a day. I propose to you that the overwhelming amount of soft drug users will also have little or no desire (not to mention the financial means) to be stoned all the time.


So we should start administering BAC (blow in the tube sir) tests to all at every opportunity? Should there be a BAC tester ignition disabeler installed in every vehicle straight from the factory? Have you asked your daughter's prom date to blow in the tube when he last picked her up? Will you stay up until the return home and expect him to blow in the tube again then? And i'm sure your daughter's prom date wants to know how many shotguns you have and if your proficient in there use :)

I jest a little, but really. The sky will most certainly not fall and everyone will most probably not go completely slap insane if soft drugs are all legalized.

So I would only get to join your secret handshake club if I were to pass a drug test? That's not discriminatory at all is it? Going to go out on a limb here and say that if any "secret handshake club" is more worried about a prospect being an "evil" drug user than whether they are recruiting a solid upstanding member of society, who pays his taxes, loves his family, contributes to his community....... who may occasionally smoke a herb on the weekend etc... well they probably are looking at the wrong stuff and are not gonna be to popular an organization anyways.

I do certainly espouse some "libertarian ideals"

But i have learned my lessons well in life, and i do know this. What's right is right, And you should always "Aim small, Miss small" (ie Aim for the stars, when you make it to the moon it won't be a dissapointment)

Also i would like to note that we are solely focusing on possible negatives here, There are many many known positives that will occur with "soft" legalization.

Short list would include,
1) Rebirth of Hemp industry, estimated to be worth multiple billions in expected tax revenue alone.
2) Tax revenue from the legalized and regulated product.. God only know's how many $$$
3) Reduced costs for the known downturns which will occur with a reduction in illegal drug use(reduction in costs associated with HIV infections would in and of themselves be profound)
4) The effective stripping of money and power from drug kingpins / cartels / etc. 70+ percent of their revenue / income comes from "soft" drugs. With that money gone they will not be able to continue the border wars that they have started.
5) to some extent drug tourism would come in play. (not sure how long this would go as quite frankly once the US legalizes i believe the majority of the world will quickly follow.)


I'm sure that there are many more that i am not thinking of presently... but that's a good enough start.

I am skeptical of this statement. Do you have any source info?

This argument relies on the assumption that store bought legal weed would be cheaper than some bought on the street. I'm very curious about whether illicit marijuana sales have ceased in Colorado since it was legalized. How many packs of cigarettes are illegally imported and sold in New York state each year? Are we really naive enough to think that the drug lords in south America will stop shipping pot over the border once it is legal here? Or are we now going to legally buy from those murderers?

There is no simple answer to this.

Let me play devils advocate here and tell you why weed is possibly a gateway drug. Currently you have to purchase weed from a dealer / gang member / addict. Even though weed itself is documented to be a non addictive drug by Both the Institute of Medicine, and the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, It's the very fact that you need to purchase it on the black market that makes it a gateway. The people who sell it there, have it in there best interest to "give" free samples out to weed users of other "hard" drugs. Once hooked on them.....

So legalization, control, and regulation would effectively remove any chance that any "soft" drug use could lead to "hard" drug use.

But i have no doubt that Dorito use would at a minimum double. :D

"Sure you can abuse anything. People abuse the hell out of cheeseburgers,but you don't see them shutting down burger king"

Yep....I love how people that drink like there is no tomorrow but look down on someone that burn on occasion. Alcohol IS a drug,a far more addictive and dangerous one at that. It is comedy...I won't lie I use to burn daily to take the edge off a rough day like someone would drink a few beers. Now I don't do anything but don't talk down on people that do either. It's your damn life nobody should have to tell you how to live it.

some links to relevant discussion on the topic.

from wikipedia
from business insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/portu...n-works-2012-7

cato institute: http://www.cato.org/publications/whi...-drug-policies


all of the above relate to portugal, if you want to similar results for the netherlands just do a google search for "results of netherlands drug legalization"

in regards to your questions about whether store bought can be undercut by the black market.. the answer is i'm sure it can. But if the store bout brand is priced accordingly to provide a solid profit margin for the growers / distributors, and to return a solid tax to the government it will make the sale of a "black" market version economically unviable. The cost's to do something illegal are always much higher, You have to hide everything you do, a large percentage of you profit goes out the door in bribes, and you will also loose a large percentage thru betrayal / police activity. Even our government should be able to effectively compete with drugs lords on weed pricing.

Could probably even bring a fair chunk of change to the locally grown farming community (they have suffered a lot in recent years and could sure use a boost)

The only real viable reason for caution in moving forward with wholesale legalization is the incredible amount of people and money who are currently in the "game" because the are "fighting" the war on drugs. We cannot afford as a country to have them unemployed, so they must be retrained and put to use building our nations infrastructure or something along those line. (not saying its going to happen.. just saying that it needs to)

Have no idea what's going on in colorado or other states that have legalized, am sure there are still legal issues being worked on due to Federal involvement. So realistically it's still far to early to see how that's going to roll out.

kind of tough to get more conservative than fox news.. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12...-eyes-lessons/

Thanks Ace. You saved me some time with those links this morning.
Can a store be undercut by the black market sure it can but look at tomatoes. I can grow them better or buy from a friend who grows but like a high percentage of Americans I am lazy and I go to the store. I can also brew my own beer but I go to the store.

Cannabis needs to 100% legal for adults over 21 ( it can stunt brain development in young children if they habitually smoke in early years , but so can booze and concussions but no body wants football illegal )

Decrim on hard drugs and start harm reduction like treatment and have a avenue once clean you can get it off your record and get a real job to better yourself.


When 52% want it legal and 42% want those 52% in a cage I believe that's bad law.


http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/...ing-marijuana/

I typed all that as I brewed my batch of drugs for my morning wake up. We all do some kind of drug.

Since retail outlets haven't opened yet In CO and Was I'm sure all sales are still considered federally illegal.

America /isreal & holland grow the best bud on the planet. No one or at least most wouldn't buy Mexican ditch weed if they had a option.

I see the effects of the enforcement of laws that are designed to protect us from ourselves every day at work. I am for the abolition of any law that seeks to protect us from ourselves. The problems that we are facing today stem mainly from the nanny state practice of keeping stupid people alive. If we didn't have helmet laws, drug prohibitions, air bags, and warning labels, we would not have stupid voters latched onto the dole nipple who keep us in our present state. They would be dead.

How many adults in this country think that smoking cigarettes is healthy? How many are ignorant of the health risks involved with tobacco? By this point, if you do not know smoking is bad....get off my planet. The same goes for booze, drugs, and even "herbal medicines".

I see bored kids who tried a drug, and were turned into animals by a penal system designed to create correctional revenues.

If there was no safety net such as SSI, SDI, food stamps, free medical care, Section 8 etc. There would be a REAL penalty for ecoming an addict.....STARVATION!

The best part about a Libertarian agenda is the FAIR TAX! You see, pimps, dealers, thieves, and even welfare mamas and industrialist robber barons all pay thier taxes at the point of sale. No more evasion and no more IRS.

There is no Libertarian utopia, that is the forte of the Liberal Democrats. Either accept big brothergovernment and, live in a nanny state, or join the Libertarian party or reform the Republican party.

Can't even find "stress" in cali anymore...its been eradicated

well said. Maybe its just the area I live in, or the people that I hang around with, but, most people that I talk to agree with the general idea of what you posted above. Why can't we elect someone that will push this agenda?

Ha. True. Recent research on PTSD and cannabis and our veterans is extremely promising. Way better than some toxic prescription drugs. With it being in S1 the government won't let anyone study it here unless they promise they are only looking for negative things. That's why Isreal is leading the world in MJ studies.

"The University of Mississippi grows and harvests cannabis for studies funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, yet because NIDA's congressionally mandated mission is to research the harmful effects of controlled substances and stop drug abuse, the institute isn't interested in helping establish marijuana as a medicine."


http://m.popsci.com/science/article/...page-view=true

Ron Paul but he was not given the time of day by the mass media.

Maybe we can get Rand Paul next go around. Something has to give.

We can only hope...

:smokin: