Answering the Libertarian argument for drug legalization

[MathGeek]

In my first post, I clearly stated that most federal drug laws are an overreach of federal power, and most drug regulation should be a state issue. Referring to marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug is a reference to federal law.

The intrastate possession and use (recreational or medical) of drugs within Louisiana should be under the authority of the State of Louisiana regulated by the discretion of the Louisiana legislature in accordance with Constitutional due process.

Can the Louisiana legislature reasonably choose to follow the federal lead if it determines that accords with the best available scientific information and the best interests of its citizens? YES.

Can the Louisiana legislature reasonably choose to deviate from the federal lead if it determines that accords with the best available scientific information and the best interests of its citizens? YES, but I hope they give due consideration to the possible retribution from the feds if they do.

It would be quite a stretch to conclude that the majority of Louisiana voters support marijuana legalization from either national surveys or a non-scientific SaltyCajun survey with < 100 responses.

God bless Louisiana.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

In my first post, I clearly stated that most federal drug laws are an overreach of federal power, and most drug regulation should be a state issue. Referring to marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug is a reference to federal law.

The intrastate possession and use (recreational or medical) of drugs within Louisiana should be under the authority of the State of Louisiana regulated by the discretion of the Louisiana legislature in accordance with Constitutional due process.

Can the Louisiana legislature reasonably choose to follow the federal lead if it determines that accords with the best available scientific information and the best interests of its citizens? YES.

Can the Louisiana legislature reasonably choose to deviate from the federal lead if it determines that accords with the best available scientific information and the best interests of its citizens? YES, but I hope they give due consideration to the possible retribution from the feds if they do.

It would be quite a stretch to conclude that the majority of Louisiana voters support marijuana legalization from either national surveys or a non-scientific SaltyCajun survey with < 100 responses.

God bless Louisiana.

Can't say it's surprising that you find little merit in your science experiment, with a poll of the typically conservation fishing community here at SaltyCajun.

Generally speaking one should give fair consideration to all forms of results, So that one can further refine their testing method and thereby end in a solution that will have the greatest positive impact.

I'm sure if the numbers had been ones which you were hoping for you would probably be looking at it as a resounding success.

And really all the people here who have not supported your message, are very diverse lot, They have advocated from positions of having previously used, to current use, to having never used. They advocate from positions discussing the benefits of this drug as a medicine, as a tool for adult relaxation, as a boost to economy. They advocated in light of the harms that will be removed with legalization like reduction in the powerbase of organized crime / cartels, like less lives being sucked into the criminal world because of a simple mistake on the part of a child. They are Cajuns, Acadien's, Louisianian's (i even think there's a partially sane californian around somewhere) ..... They are American and they are America.

And the exact same thing can be said of those who disagree with legalization.

I'm proud of this discussion, and have faith that the right things will start happening, perhaps a little slower than some would be happiest with, but so be it.

Wait and see never cuts it, by refusing to take action you are then making the decision to support whatever it is that you disagree with.

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

In my first post, I clearly stated that most federal drug laws are an overreach of federal power, and most drug regulation should be a state issue. Referring to marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug is a reference to federal law.

The intrastate possession and use (recreational or medical) of drugs within Louisiana should be under the authority of the State of Louisiana regulated by the discretion of the Louisiana legislature in accordance with Constitutional due process.

Can the Louisiana legislature reasonably choose to follow the federal lead if it determines that accords with the best available scientific information and the best interests of its citizens? YES.

Can the Louisiana legislature reasonably choose to deviate from the federal lead if it determines that accords with the best available scientific information and the best interests of its citizens? YES, but I hope they give due consideration to the possible retribution from the feds if they do.

It would be quite a stretch to conclude that the majority of Louisiana voters support marijuana legalization from either national surveys or a non-scientific SaltyCajun survey with < 100 responses.

God bless Louisiana.

So why did you put a vote in place?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Goooh

So why did you put a vote in place?

I wanted there to be a clear visual indicator at the top of every page that a significant number of those advocating legalization of cannabis in this discussion weren't too concerned with increased access by adolescents and that many were also not going to be content with marijuana, but also advocated legalization of all drugs.

A survey in an internet discussion forum does not reveal the positions of the general population, but it is a useful tool for revealing the positions of participants in the discussion.

It is also notable that in their letter for the actual exercise of legislative power, the forum participant(s) advocating that exercise say nothing about drafting a law for legalization with a lower age limit of 21 to restrict access to adults, nothing about keeping felony penalties for providing access to those under 21, nothing about a blood alcohol limit for drivers (say 5 ng/ml like legislation Washington and Colorado), and nothing about maintaining current restrictions on manufacture, importation, and distribution of other drugs. The actual legislation they are advocating opens the gate without any reasonable boundaries.

Current scientific information about marijuana has been summarized in the AAP policy statement “Marijuana: A Continuing Concern for Pediatricians.” Some of the significant neuropharmacologic, cognitive, behavioral, and somatic consequences of acute and long-term marijuana use are well known and include negative effects on short-term memory, concentration, attention span, motivation, and problem solving, which clearly interfere with learning; adverse effects on coordination, judgment, reaction time, and tracking ability, which contribute substantially to unintentional deaths and injuries among adolescents (especially those associated with motor vehicles); and negative health effects with repeated use similar to effects seen with smoking tobacco. - Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Current scientific information about marijuana has been summarized in the AAP policy statement “Marijuana: A Continuing Concern for Pediatricians.” Some of the significant neuropharmacologic, cognitive, behavioral, and somatic consequences of acute and long-term marijuana use are well known and include negative effects on short-term memory, concentration, attention span, motivation, and problem solving, which clearly interfere with learning; adverse effects on coordination, judgment, reaction time, and tracking ability, which contribute substantially to unintentional deaths and injuries among adolescents (especially those associated with motor vehicles); and negative health effects with repeated use similar to effects seen with smoking tobacco. - Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth

Drug use in America tends to follow cycles, often with one generation having to relearn the experiences of previous ones. Ninety years after the first cocaine epidemic, cocaine use began to increase in the 1970s and escalated substantially from 1980 to 1995. Because it had been so long since the previous epidemic, cocaine was perceived to be a safe drug. In a chapter on cocaine in the 1980 edition of a prominent textbook of psychiatry, the authors wrote: “If it is used no more than two or three times a week, cocaine creates no serious problems.”18 In 1977, 10% of 18- to 25-year-olds had used cocaine; that proportion doubled to 20% in 1979. By 1985, one third of 18- to 25-year-olds had used cocaine, as had 17.3% of 12th graders.15 Only with subsequent widespread publicity about the health risks and addictive properties of cocaine and the epidemic of crack cocaine did cocaine use among young people begin to wane.- Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I wanted there to be a clear visual indicator at the top of every page that a significant number of those advocating legalization of cannabis in this discussion weren't too concerned with increased access by adolescents and that many were also not going to be content with marijuana, but also advocated legalization of all drugs.

A survey in an internet discussion forum does not reveal the positions of the general population, but it is a useful tool for revealing the positions of participants in the discussion.

Again.... with the crying. You did not put this survey in place to give a clear visual indicator of where people stand, If you had wanted to do that you would have left the survey results open where you and everyone else could see how each individual voted.

The survey represents the viewpoint, of the "SaltyCajun" microcosm. Nothing more, nothing less. It may fall in line with surveys of greater scope or it may not.

Originally Posted by MathGeek

It is also notable that in their letter for the actual exercise of legislative power, the forum participant(s) advocating that exercise say nothing about drafting a law for legalization with a lower age limit of 21 to restrict access to adults, nothing about keeping felony penalties for providing access to those under 21, nothing about a blood alcohol limit for drivers (say 5 ng/ml like legislation Washington and Colorado), and nothing about maintaining current restrictions on manufacture, importation, and distribution of other drugs. The actual legislation they are advocating opens the gate without any reasonable boundaries.

Do we really need to have a remedial learning session with you? Do you really need a reminder of just exactly how many times I and others have clearly stated that we do NOT advocate underage use of ANY drug. We do advocate legalization and regulation, which has been shown by the overwhelming amount of scientific studies that are non biased, current, and of sufficient scope, to be the ONLY REAL PATH to a significant reduction in drug use.

Your stating that I and others advocate underage use of drugs, is the equivalent to me stating your preferred and personally used method of getting high is to mainline opiates. (since you have not raised any real objections to today's rampant prescription drug abuse, and the lack of controls upon it)

In other words it is an attempt on your part to create association via misinformation, and quite frankly lies.

I unlike you am not on a mission here to identify "who" believes and to then sew onto their shirt a star so that everyone can know "who" they identify with. Instead my purpose here is to offer reasoning based on the 17,000+ scientific studies showing every possible benefit of cannabis. And to also make a case for methods of regulation and control that will reduce abuse among all, and to explore the viable medicinal qualities of the plant.

All that you have advocated MG is a continuation of the same policies that are creating more and more users / abusers / dealers / cartels / and wars.

The four main lobbying groups that advocate continued criminilization of cannabis are Alcohol, Tobacco, Pharma, and Prison lobbys.

The money committed from those 4 lobbies to ensure cannibis stays illegal is ABSURD. The only thing that we need to do is allow them to find ways to patent cannabis products and those products will become legal INSTANTLY.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

It is also notable that in their letter for the actual exercise of legislative power, the forum participant(s) advocating that exercise say nothing about drafting a law for legalization with a lower age limit of 21 to restrict access to adults, nothing about keeping felony penalties for providing access to those under 21, nothing about a blood alcohol limit for drivers (say 5 ng/ml like legislation Washington and Colorado), and nothing about maintaining current restrictions on manufacture, importation, and distribution of other drugs. The actual legislation they are advocating opens the gate without any reasonable boundaries.

Using the above quote from Mathgeek as an example i am now going to demonstrate how association is truly a fine scientific method.

It is notable that mathgeek originally discussed child prostitution, another forum commenter stated that comparing child prostitution to cannabis use was "hurting his argument". Since Mathgeek did not dispute this with the other commenter or offer any further explanation we can infer the following.

1) Mathgeek supports ongoing child prostitution, and the organizations that fund them.

2) Because of his support for child prostitution, there is a very high probability of likelihood that Mathgeek is also a pedophile.


Does anyone else see that it's not surprising that Real Science does not use this method?

I hope you got something better than this in your bag of tricks MG.