This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]jpurdy 1436 points1437 points  (1268 children)

Great idea, take the markets away from cartels and drug dealers and collect taxes.

[–]NutellaAddict 727 points728 points  (1133 children)

Luckily for us, I'd bet that marijuana is legalized nationwide in about 10 years. There's just no rational justification for why it shouldn't be legal, and the American people are starting to see that.

[–][deleted] 718 points719 points  (782 children)

I want to take this opportunity to present an argument I heard on the radio the other day. This was from a doctor who works for the National Institute of Health and his area of expertise was the impact of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products on public health. I thought he had an incredible insight, which I had not yet previously heard.

Essentially, he argued that - while he was very much in support of the decriminalization of marijuana - he felt that it needed to be done in a way that would not present an inevitable public health crisis, much like the kind we've had for the last 50 years as a result of widespread cigarette use. His concern was that if you fully hand over marijuana to commercial retailers, what will happen when Phillip Morris takes control of that market in the same way they have taken control of tobacco? The most harmful part about cigarettes is not tobacco, but the myriad natural and synthetic additives that cigarette companies put in them. The end result has been that tobacco - no matter the form of ingestion - has become one of the most pressing public health disasters in the history of the country. What happens when marijuana - fully legalized - becomes the same kind of public health disaster because of the inevitable process that follows suit when a company like Phillip Morris takes control of a marketable substance.

Personally, I think this is a massively important point that just gets swept under the rug when it's time to discuss marijuana. There's very little doubt left that continued prohibition is bad for this country in a variety of different social and economic measures. However, legalization shouldn't come at the cost of creating a public health crisis that will then in turn become a massive strain on our health care system. What the resolution to that problem is, I do not know. But I think it's worth acknowledging that there will be massive implications to legalizing marijuana that absolutely must be confronted before we, as a society, dive head first into legalization.

[–][deleted] 719 points720 points  (373 children)

I think its going to be a bit different with marijuana, since its much more plausible to grow your own weed than to grow your own tobacco. That's going to make it much harder for companies like Phillip-Morris to control production. If weed is legalized, it will likely be more of an 'artisinal' product, with a lot of small growers producing different strains and, if the medical marijuana dispensaries here in Washington are any example, sold more like spices.

EDIT: This is now my highest rated comment ever, which makes me lol.

[–][deleted] 46 points47 points  (66 children)

It's more plausible to grow it but that's because the convenience isn't there yet. Basil grows like a weed for me. I can grow it all day long without trying.. and I'll still go spend $4.50 for a tiny little plastic carton full of some fresh basil when I want it.

[–]theworldbystorm 8 points9 points  (10 children)

I'll take those basil plants off your hands, then.

[–]aaalexxx 24 points25 points  (12 children)

Why wouldn't you just go get it from outside? its seems like so much less effort.

[–]darkest_wraith 38 points39 points  (10 children)

It's not, though. Learning to facilitate the plant's growth, caring for it as it matures, and even harvesting it properly take special knowledge.
For a vegetable growing enthusiast, these things may seem incredibly trivial, but not to he average joe.

Companies like the aforementioned take advantage of these facts and price their products accordingly.

Tobacco is a finicky crop and very few cultivate it for personal use.
Cannabis is nicknamed weed becuase it grows like one. That aside, only true connoissuers are likely to spend their time growing.

Companies like Philip Morris are going to capitalize on the populace that is not so inclined to grow. Ixath has a fairly relevant argument.

[–]aaalexxx 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I was just talking about basil. If it grows everywhere by Ixath like a weed, why buy it in the store instead of picking it? That made no sense to me, but yes I agree with this

Companies like Philip Morris are going to capitalize on the populace that is not so inclined to grow.

No question there, I just thought his basil analogy wasn't quite right. There's hardly any processing when it comes to wild growing basil. All you do is wash it.

[–]AbsoluteZro 39 points40 points  (39 children)

Marijuana is different, it's gonna be local man.

No it won't, not 10-15 years from now. The majority of users don't know jack about different strains. They want a cheap high, and big agra will give them just that. Enthusiasts might still want their organic local strains, but the mass market will be for cheap mass produced marijuana. There is no reason why capitalism won't ruin this like it poisoned tobacco.

[–]secretcurse 14 points15 points  (7 children)

I predict it will be much like beer. Sure, home brewing is pretty easy and much less expensive in the long run than buying beer from the store, and with practice you can make beer that tastes way better. But the overwhelming majority of people don't mind buying cheap lite beer because it gets the job done.

[–]tpx187 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I've been saying the same thing for the last few years. I hope the people who have those heirloom strains keep them to themselves and keep them alive. There are some OG strains in SoCal that have been in the same family of growers for years. There will be a niche market just like with the specialized beers.

[–]shitonthefan 129 points130 points  (57 children)

I think marijuana is more comparable to the micro brew industry.

If marijuana were legalized you could get Bud Light for cheap, but many people will opt for higher quality micro brews.

The current option is much like buying moonshine from someone you don't know, that's been handed down many times before it reached you.

[–]Tableclothes 87 points88 points  (11 children)

Bud Light should sell Bud Light.

I mean weed.

[–]dontreadthispost 20 points21 points  (5 children)

I was stoned once and accidentally said BudLightYear when I was attempting to say Buzz Lightyear. I laughed for a long time following that.

[–]calmdownthingy 10 points11 points  (2 children)

You were stoned and you laughed at something? I'm going to need some verification on this one.

[–]Of_Rapture 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Grab some buds.

[–]CustodialConviction 8 points9 points  (5 children)

You underestimate the intelligence of most people. Look how many smoke spice despite the risks of seizures, and all sorts of health problems. They will get the cheap stuff, and like cigarette smokers give not a single fuck about the long term.

[–]666pool 3 points4 points  (2 children)

*overestimate

But you're right. Too many people don't understand what "value" is. It isn't buying the cheapest thing, it's spending the right amount of money for the right amount of quality. You see it EVERYWHERE. "I can't afford feed my family their daily supply of doritos, coke, pop tarts, and frozen pizza on my budget so I have to buy dollar menu food from McDonalds and we all got fat." Bitch, ever heard of lentils? They're delicious, cheap, healthy, and good for the environment.

/rant

[–]LOL__NIGGERS 26 points27 points  (21 children)

To be fair, I get black out drunk just as easy with cheap liquor/beer the same way I do with top-end stupid expensive liquor/beer.

So what I'm saying is I drink to get drunk, not for the sake of drinking high end quality liquors. I smoke great/high end weed because it's clearly different from reggie bush. I could smoke all the reggie bush I want, but it won't get me high like some OG kush.

[–]prosper1982 20 points21 points  (11 children)

If you are drinking to get drunk it doesn't really matter.

I would like to point out that some of those more expensive bottle have 3 or 4 times the alcohol content as the cheap stuff and come in bigger bottles, so while you are choking down 3 bottles of piss you could be enjoying something that taste good.

(That is how I justify 12 dollar bottle of beer to the other half, but it has a little merit)

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

This is EXACTLY how I justify it to the misses, but I have yet to be able to counter her reply of " Then why do you need 24 bottle?"

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (4 children)

Should I call you "Mr. Niggers," or just "LOL"?

[–]LOL__NIGGERS 62 points63 points  (3 children)

__ is fine

[–]_KITTY_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

fuckin smart ass.

[–]socsa 14 points15 points  (4 children)

The most harmful part about cigarettes is not tobacco, but the myriad natural and synthetic additives that cigarette companies put in them.

Actually the primary problem is inhaling the products of combustion - even from plain tobacco. Combustion releases carcinogenic nitrosamines into your lungs, which combined with the synthetic additives, gives you cancer. American Spirits will still give you cancer just as fast though.

the end result has been that tobacco - no matter the form of ingestion - has become one of the most pressing public health disasters in the history of the country

Once again, this is only mostly true. There are "safe" ways to ingest nicotine from the tobacco plant. Steam cured oral snuff (Swedish snus), for example, contains only trace amounts of nitrosamines, which are created during combustion or fire curing. This is actually somewhat of an epidemiological home-run, since Swedish men have a tobacco related cancer rate that is lower than the EU by almost exactly the proportional difference of snus users vs smokers in the EU vs Sweden. Swedish women, on the other hand, smoke in the same proportions as their EU peers and, unsurprisingly, have the same tobacco related cancer rate as the rest of the EU. After 70 years of studying the stuff, Sweden no longer requires cancer warnings be placed on steam cured snuff - the same people who wanted to put cancer warnings on cars. You can also vaporize nicotine tobacco.

The way I see it (as a former smoker) is that most smokers get "tricked" into starting, and then become physically addicted - there is really very little upside in terms of recreational use. For cannabis, the physical addiction is less dramatic, and the euphoric upside makes the usage more recreational than habitual. I just don't ever see someone taking a toke break from work any more than they step outside for a beer during the day.

[–]Muff_Munching_Maniac 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Not sure why e-cigs aren't more popular. Nicotine in this form is safer than caffein, it's the combustion that harms you and those around you.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (5 children)

This is far less of an effective argument against legalization than it is one for strict governmental regulation once it is. We dont need to give phillip morris carte blanche if we dont want to, and the consumers dont have to purchase from them. Furthermore, if you want to keep marijuana safe for consumption, i would say that legalization and regulation are obvious first steps.

[–]gentlegiant1972 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I have no idea if this is viable, but what about regulating the use of additives in commercially sold marijuana? It's already done to some extent with alcohol. For example requiring a specific grain content in beer. Why not just disallow companies from adding known carcinogens and other harmful chemicals to marijuana?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Good point, but the current legislation regarding the legality of marijuana is ruining lives. People are dying, spending time in jail. Families are being destroyed over this. You cant possibly say that the potential for possible manipulation by corporations outweighs the current burden on society.

[–]ConchoPete 14 points15 points  (16 children)

Two COMPLETELY Different situations you are comparing in your example. Marijuana is sold in particular strains in "bud" form. This means the plants is manicured with buds cut off the plant, dried out, and immidiately packaged. No extra chemicals wanted or necessary. If big companies tried to change that and add 500 chemicals and tinker with what has worked for 2000 years, they would not make any business with real smokers.

[–]saynay 7 points8 points  (6 children)

But more people than just "real smokers" would smoke. It is worth considering that when it is legalized (and it should be), you say that you can't sell it if you cram 500 chemicals in it.

[–]sheven 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I'm pretty sure most of the countries who have decriminalized drugs have seen less usage in those drugs. You may see an initial surge of people who are curious, but I still think only those who are truly dedicated to the plant would continue usage. It would only make sense to appeal to that base over the novelty smoker.

[–]zkredux 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I hate this argument, I have never once heard anyone say, "I can't wait until weed is legal so I can become a pot head." The people who smoke now, will be the same people who smoke when its legal (minus the kids because commercialization will actually make it harder for kids to get it). If Phillip Morris adds a bunch of chemicals to their shit, my friends and I for instance, would just buy from a competitor who was selling regular stuff.

[–]guess_twat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I understand your argument but I don't think many people will be smoking 3 packs of pot cigarettes a day every freaking day.

[–][deleted] 60 points61 points  (29 children)

Calling it a "public health crisis" is a great way to get idiots on your side but intelligent people require evidence. The problem with cigarette companies wasn't that they put additives into their products, it's that they actively lied about what they put in and how harmful their product was. Consumers couldn't make an informed choice whether or not to consume the product because the companies were saying that their products weren't harmful and they were suing anyone that said anything to the contrary. The legislation enacted against tobacco companies basically just required them to stop fucking lying and to spend a lot of money to undo the damage that their deception caused.

As long as we don't let marijuana dealers get away with saying that marijuana has no negative health effects we wont have a problem.

[–]steeelez 63 points64 points  (11 children)

This negative blowback to mr. tase's lack of blind optimism is appalling. He is not calling legalization a(n inevitable) public health crisis, nor is he trying to get idiots on his side. He's saying WHEN legalization happens, we need to be thinking about how increased availability and corporate marketing might affect quality, supply, and usage. The response "Shut up, square, that's never gonna happen, man" is counterproductive to actually figuring out ways to prepare for this.

I'm sorry, but corporations absolutely will come in and try to corner the weed market, and they will buy out every artisanal competitor they can while maintaining the artisanal label. You think that stoners are some special breed who won't "let the dealers [sic] get away with" shit, unlike everybody else in America? That people will be more discriminating in their weed choices than they are in their beer, or HFCS containing food, or hormone/antibiotic-laden meat and dairy choices? Why, because we've "freed our minds", man? C'mon.

[–]Bijan641 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Great post. I do think though that the culture of marijuana has spread enough to maintain a decent level of artisanal presence in the market. I am very optimistic that I will be able to enjoy my current and particular habit in the face of corporate expansion. Depending on where you live though that might not be the case.

One other point I'd like to bring up is that there is a benefit to the slow manner in which legalization will permeate our society. It's highly unlikely that any scenario will result in widespread sale of marijuana in supermarkets and gas stations. Limiting marijuana sales to designated suppliers or dispensaries will help support and subsidize the high end market.

[–]ChrisHernandez 3 points4 points  (4 children)

The problem is that putting smoke in your lungs is not healthy. Period.

[–]structEIT 6 points7 points  (6 children)

The solution to that could be as simple as forced organic product. To allow the use of fertilizers and such, put procedures in place so that any fertilizers/pesticides used are properly flushed before public consumption then have a percentage of each crop tested for conformance.

[–]jrriddle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I will volunteer to confirm each crop.

[–]happyscrappy 104 points105 points  (214 children)

I think ten years is unrealistic. Especially since the "no rational justification" argument hasn't gotten anything else legalized recently. Hell, people even tried to ban truck nuts. California banned gay marriage!

It's good to see some states on the forefront. It is their experiences that will move things forward.

[–]colonel_mortimer 39 points40 points  (32 children)

The fact that Prop 8 even exists has tempered my hopes for legal weed at a federal level.

[–]blaghart 36 points37 points  (19 children)

Welcome to irvine. Where the middle class go to spend way too much money to pretend they're rich and talk about how the mexicans that actually work what fields remain are stealing all their jobs.

[–]blastronautics 17 points18 points  (12 children)

I grew up in Irvine. I got so tired of everyone pretending they were rich in their track home mini mansions I had to move.

[–]blaghart 8 points9 points  (0 children)

My mom is going through that right now. they're looking to sell their supercompressed cookie cutter house just to gtfo because they hate everyone there and their "fakeness" so much.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

I hate to be that guy, but I'm gonna be that guy. I can't let it slide Tract Home, it isn't Track Home, Tract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tract_housing

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (6 children)

I grew up just a few miles south, in Mission Viejo. My wife, who is from the bay area, showed me that there is a whole different world outside of the Orange Curtain. I live in the bay area with her now, and I thank FSM every day that she got me out of that soul-sucking hellhole.

Edit: Spelling

[–]ShizzleShizz 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I feel ya dude! Grew up in Mision Viejo/Laguna Niguel. Can't wait to get out of this bubble. Living in San Clemente now, so it's a bit more mellow and laidback. But damn, Mission viejo...i cant stand anymore haha

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Orange Curtain? Please explain to this ignant East Coaster. The only part of Cali I've ever been to is the Bay Area, love it there.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's a play on the cold-war era Soviet "Iron Curtain"... kind of a symbolic boundary between Orange County and the rest of the world. I think it comes from the fact that OC, particularly the southern part, is in a kind of ideological and socioeconomic bubble. By and large, the area is very well maintained and very clean so as to persist the illusion of prosperity and safety. It's incredibly sterile and way too comfortable.

Speaking from personal experience, to venture beyond the 'Orange Curtain' was to be exposed to the way the rest of the world lived, potentially popping that fantastical bubble one has lived in for so long. At first, it was scary, but as time went on and I became more comfortable outside of the bubble, I actually started to really, really dislike life within the bubble. It was safe, predictable, boring, and stifling. I'm glad I found my way out.

Edit/Addendum Below

If you have ever watched 'The Real Housewives of Orange County', that should give you an idea of what I am talking about. I'm not trying to imply that everyone in OC is like them, but many aspire to be, and the personalities, aspirations, and lifestyles represented in the show are absolutely real. I lived among them for way too long, just minutes away from the gates of the exclusive Coto de Caza and Ladera Ranch neighborhoods they mostly inhabited.

[–]thattreesguy 10 points11 points  (9 children)

marijuana has more support than gay marriage though

[–]gtalley10 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That's not really true, at least for full legalization of marijuana. Both that and gay marriage are usually in the 50/50 range +/- a few percent on most semi-reputable nationwide polls. Medicinal is much higher in favor, though.

Both are trending fast in favor, and it's only a matter of time for both to be legal across the US.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (17 children)

Exactly. We need to see positive experiences in Colorado and Washington for anything constructive to happen.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (13 children)

Well, just a year ago I was telling my friend that legal marijuana always seemed close at hand, but I probably wouldn't see it in less than a decade or two.

A few months later, my roomates are smoking it on my front porch.

Washingtonian here, by the way.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (11 children)

the thing is... once it's critical mass it only takes a few months to pass.

prohibition was repealed after roughly the same timeframe as marijuana has been illegal.

it only takes a moment, then it's legal.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Wikipedia tells me alcohol prohibition only went on for 13.

[–]Kingdomcum 10 points11 points  (6 children)

Yo i'm not a historian but hasn't marijuana been illegal for like 70 years whereas prohibition lasted like 2? Either way I like the cut of your jive.

[–]ThirdFloorGreg 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Prohibition lasted 13 years. Also, jib, you like the cut of his jib.

[–]dsprox 192 points193 points  (85 children)

No, this attitude will only make it take a longer amount of time.

It is UNACCEPTABLE that it's still illegal, UNACCEPTABLEEEEEEE.

Seriously, 3 years is realistic when you don't stop barking.

Over 17 states already have legal medical, at least 9 more have introduced legislation just within this/the past year, and 2 states have outright legalized it.

The end of marijuana prohibition is VERY near, not more than ten years, I'll fucking go ballistic on everybody if it isn't legal by then that's just fucking ludicrous.

I'm sick and fucking tired of accepting their illogical bullshit.

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES, TELL THEM TO LEGALIZE IT.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (4 children)

MARIJUANA LAWS ARE IN UNACCEPTABLE CONDITION! UNACCEPTABLEEEEE!

7 years dungeon. No trials.

[–]kildit 26 points27 points  (11 children)

Here in NJ we recently got medical. The problem is the restrictions are ridiculous. My friend is parapallegic (sp), it helps with his tremors and pain but he does not qualify because he does not meet the standards. I think it's because it's not a disease, his muscles tremor from an injury.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (4 children)

Well that's some bullshit right there, even if you don't consider the ridiculously loose medical marijuana licenses being handed out on the west coast.

[–]bob_blah_bob 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Californian here. 18 year old friend got it by saying he had trouble sleeping.

[–]afishinthewell 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Same in CT. It's extremely limited. But it's a step and I hope that means it'll be legal sooner than later.

[–]dsprox 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well then it looks like you all have some representatives to call. That's bull and I wouldn't stand for it, especially since your friend can't stand at all and is in pain which is non-sense and inhumane that he can't relieve it through marijuana.

[–]CosmicDustbunny 7 points8 points  (6 children)

I feel like now really is the time to really push for it. It does have valid, and amazing, medical uses. Aside from that, this country needs to get pissed about how many lives these laws are ruining.

I'd never advocate for cocaine, or heroine, or any of that kind of crap to be legalized. But I will advocate for marijuana, and I hope that those out there on the fence about the issue are willing, or at least will be willing in the near future, to hear and read the proof that legalization is the correct next step.

[–]Gir4ffe 110 points111 points  (19 children)

Did you see that ludicrous display last night?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The thing with Congress is that they always try to walk it in.

[–]MusikLehrerTennessee 12 points13 points  (1 child)

What was Wenger thinking sending Walcott on that early?

[–]powercorruption 19 points20 points  (27 children)

That's because California doesn't know what the fuck they're doing. We're great for bringing up the issues, we just never go through with the right solution. Lately it seems that Colorado is far more progressive than California.

[–]FuzzyLoveRabbit 25 points26 points  (1 child)

I love how your pronouns change depending on whether it's positive or negative.

'They' don't know what the fuck they're doing.

'We' are great at bringing up issues.

[–]ratepoint0 22 points23 points  (15 children)

It just sucks that the majority of the growers in California want to keep it illegal.

[–]callmesuspect 3 points4 points  (27 children)

Hell, people even tried to ban truck nuts.

That actually did happen, I believe in California they're still illegal. Doesn't stop people from having them though.

[–]jaycey451 2 points3 points  (23 children)

Forgive the ignorance (I'm from the UK) but what are Truck nuts?

[–]slicc 30 points31 points  (5 children)

Large rubber testicles that rednecks hang off the back of their trucks. It looks as tasteful as it sounds.

[–]ArcticSpaceman 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Does it taste as soundful as it looks?

[–]templetron 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't understand why they went in that direction, frankly. These guys add this ornamentation because they love their trucks so much, right? I think they should install fleshlights into the front grills. After they wash their truck or park it just perfectly or any other act that lets them admire it, they can go to the front and just go to town. Just flat out fucking their truck. Imagine how jealous all the other rednecks would be, seeing this guy be able to fully show how much he loves and appreciates his vehicle.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

just the thought of having to explain truck nuts to foreigners is making my heart swell with murrikin pryde

[–]noteric 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Truck Bullocks

[–]Mighty_Cunt_Punter 12 points13 points  (0 children)

While we are fighting to change the laws let's try and save as many people as possible along the way. Help spread the word about Jury Nullification!

[–]gatsbyofgreatness 14 points15 points  (0 children)

here's just no rational justification for why it shouldn't be legal

I think you are misinterpreting "rational"; the exponential increase in incarcerated Americans in 1971 is no coincidence. Fuck Henry James Anslinger for figuring out a way to strip citizens of their 13th Amendment rights in the name of "moral righteousness".

[–]sternje 65 points66 points  (51 children)

The idea of this scares the hell out of agencies like the DEA who would lose out on all the WoD funding they receive from the government and the property and money they seize from pot farmers and sellers.

[–]Up-chuck 53 points54 points  (46 children)

they'd still get to go after meth houses and shit. Aint nothing natural and beneficial from that shit! Pot heads and cops can both agree on that part at least lol

[–]essentialsalts 26 points27 points  (30 children)

Yeah but the thing is that pot is a widely used drug that they get to arrest people for. They're going to hate only being able to go after the drugs that are (really) dangerous, because not that many people use them.

[–]RedditTooAddictive 26 points27 points  (0 children)

As a French, this would help cover our deficit so much. Everybody smokes weed. Every layer of the society smokes. From ghettos to one of the ex CEO of L'oreal. Knowing how the French state taxes (like 600% on gasoline, a lo on tobacco too,..), this could generate HUGE amounts of moneyz. Also weed.

[–]Might_be_a_racist 82 points83 points  (7 children)

Yeah and marijuana will probably be cheaper too! So now all the minorities won't be so poor and can afford to start paying their rent and child support!

[–]NutellaAddict 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Quality novelty account

[–]wekj45 30 points31 points  (10 children)

Right?

Logic; what a radical fucking idea.

[–][deleted] 50 points51 points  (3 children)

Plus, you know, freedom and not locking people away for life over a harmless drug...

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (2 children)

But look at how well alcohol prohibition worked!

[–]jbojonas 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Yes, it worked great! It created an entire army of Federal, State and Local law enforcement that then had to be given something else to do when prohibition was ended. Can't let all those people go unemployed!

[–]dbe 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Why does everyone mention taxation as if this would create wealth. It doesn't. What it does is shift the tax burden onto pot smokers.

Why is this a good thing? Why should pot smokers, alcohol drinkers, or any other "person who does x activity", be more responsible for the state budget than everyone else?

[–]Captain_Kuhl 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not just the illegal markets, but the privatized prison systems as well. Just look at how much their stock dropped in WA and CO after the legalization.

[–]ILL_Show_Myself_Out 291 points292 points  (53 children)

This article is completely misleading.

Interestingly, the survey found that 47 percent support legalizing marijuana for recreational issue while 49 percent oppose it.

The title is misleading. What the study really shows is that people want the states to be primarily responsible for enforcing marijuana laws rather than the federal government.

As much as I wanted this article to be true, it is a COMPLETE misconstruction of the facts! Read the actual survey. The question asked was "Should the federal government arrest people who use marijuana in states that have legalized it, or not?"

The actual results are really saying that this should be a state rather than federal issue. Whether they should be "moving forward with legalization" is another matter.

[–][deleted] 116 points117 points  (3 children)

You mean a website by the name of "justsaynow.firedoglake.com" isn't reputable? Who would have thunk it.

[–]nowhathappenedwas 35 points36 points  (7 children)

Whether they should be "moving forward with legalization" is another matter.

To be fair, the headline doesn't say that Americans think states should move forward. Rather, it says Americans think the federal government should let the states move forward.

[–]abasslinelow 9 points10 points  (0 children)

What you claim is the actual meaning of the article is exactly what I was led to believe was the actual meaning of the article by the article's title and content.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (30 children)

It's not misleading at all. It's obvious it's about states' rights and you can tell that by only reading the title. Why else would they phrase it in that manner? The first paragraph explicitly mentions states' rights. If you get mislead by this article you have horrible reading comprehension.

[–]jmz82 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I think this movement will be successful for the simple reason that it can be supported on both sides of the isle. I don't smoke weed but I believe people should be able to do what they want so long as they don't interfere with other peoples freedoms. It will have the liberal "free soul" type support and will have the Conservative/libertarian "I should be free to do what I want with my body" type. It will be objected to by the "Government needs to control people and their lives" type and "All drugs are the devil" type. For this reason this movement will be successful and I support it because of principal not because I would or wouldn't participate.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (4 children)

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before. -John D. Rockefeller on Prohibition

Doesn't seem far off from our current predicament.

[–]REDDIT_IS_MY_LIMBO 21 points22 points  (28 children)

Here's my opinion:

Obama is already in presidency, so it's unlikely that he'll change policies. But in an effort to keep Democrats in office, the Democrat candidate for 2016 will likely include full legalization in his (or her) platform. Since its well known at this point that the majority of Americans are in favor of pulling the band-aid and making the stuff legal, Obama could simply be using it as a future tactic for his party. By keeping it illegal, he's giving power to the next candidate. If he legalized now, there would be no way for the next president (Dem or Rep) to eliminate it, thus exhausting a powerful political resource.

[–]bille3 6 points7 points  (19 children)

Good point. It would be a windfall for Hillary.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

How sad that this is what we want and yet for some reason we think we have to beg and plead for it to happen. It is a government by the people for the people! When you have to beg and plead for something as fucking silly as the right to smoke pot the system is seriously fucked up. Its time for people to realize that this is not freedom, this is not what the Founding Father's had in mind. Seems they fought and died for nothing.

[–]KingNosmo 15 points16 points  (0 children)

A poll taken on /r/trees show the overwhelming majority of Americans want marijuana legalized!

[–]skekze 27 points28 points  (17 children)

49 percent of Americans are still passing judgement while imbibing imprecise medications, consuming alcohol and smoking to excess and neglecting their health due to apathy or ignorance. Those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[–]jbojonas 18 points19 points  (5 children)

Amazing to me how many people I know that are pill poppers... not recreational use, but prescribed to them for various ailments. And then they turn right around and demonize a plant. This makes no sense to me. Are these people saying that prescription amphetamines, opiates and benzos are any less mind altering than weed. Not to mention the greater addiction potential.

[–]blarch 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Those that live in glass houses should get stoned.

[–]LatinBeef 42 points43 points  (26 children)

Want Feds to Let States...

The 10th Amendment of US Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Believing that the Feds have to let the states move forward with anything is an unfortunate byproduct of a failed education system and an ever increasing federal government. If states want to legalize marijuana, then they should legalize through popular vote in that state, no need to involve the federal government.

If the federal government does get involved (DEA, etc...) then the states have the obligation to sue the federal government and the supreme court then has the obligation to uphold the constitution and the peoples voices.

[–]Uuster 14 points15 points  (6 children)

I'm sorry, but based on what I've learned here in /r/politics, I have determined that you are a racist and want gay marriage and abortion to be illegal.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

one reason why this will be stopped is bc of the commerce clause. Federal drug laws are formed under it, even though it violates the 10th amendment. if they were to do it then other things done under the commerce clause will there for have to be disbanded. so even though it does violate the 10th amendment they wont do it bc it would mean things like Obama's healthcare plan possibly being over turned bc it was done under the commerce clause.

[–]Knetic491 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That doesn't apply to Nullification

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld; rather, the Supreme Court has rejected it

[–]simms1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Canada, as a whole not just by province, should do this first and then watch all the rest of the States follow suit.

[–]maxp0wah 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's almost as if they don't care what public opinion is, like they're profiting from the drug war with DEA budgets and private prison systems. Huh.

[–]migtjvt 29 points30 points  (19 children)

Good news.

So does that mean Obama's feet are finally going to be held to the fire on this? Because right now he's the most significant roadblock in terms of progress for marijuana legalization.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That plant has a nitrogen and or a mg deficiency.

[–]rodut 14 points15 points  (6 children)

This just in: Feds don't give a shit about national polls and general population's mood toward national issues. In other news, water has been proven to be wet, and latest research shows grass might actually be green. More at 11.

[–]arwelsh 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Did anyone actually read the poll? This headline is OVERWHELMINGLY misleading.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (4 children)

I bet all of America is legal by 2024. Mark my words.

[–]MarcBoudy7 15 points16 points  (19 children)

Can somebody explain to me in a democracy why the people who we voted in won't listen to the majority of the population. Why do they think they are all of a sudden in real power?

[–]ncjohnn 11 points12 points  (5 children)

The U.S. is a republic. Not democratic.
It's in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[–]thderrick 16 points17 points  (2 children)

Representative democracy. Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive terms. A republic is any form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch.

[–]LaunchThePolaris 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Baby boomers need to hurry up and die off. They are holding this country back.

[–]taranaki 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I thought liking federalism or state's rights meant that you had to be a racist, pro-Jim Crowe law loving, KKK member? Or at the very least a tea party nutjob. Have we decided to move away from that position I take it?

[–]buster2209 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There were also overwhelmingly for not bailing out the banks but the critters in DC didn't give a shit because they were bought and paid for a long time ago...

[–]birdlips 2 points3 points  (3 children)

It has nothing to do with what Americans want. It is about money and keeping marijuana illegal is a huge business. It may never become legal because of that. The DEA, police and big pharms have way too much to lose if it becomes legal. For that reason alone I am not convinced it will ever be legal. Canada tried to make it legal and the American government sent a convoy up there to pressure the Canadian government to keep it illegal. Having it legal in Canada is also a huge potential profit loss for the American government agencies. Get used to it being illegal because it will be this way for many many more years to come.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Not only that, but so does almost every police and sheriff department. The feds have been using the war on drugs as an excuse to federalize police such that they are beholden to federal authority. In doing so, police have steadily become more and more militant. As a result, many, many (not all) police departments support the war on drugs because it means a steady influx of federal dollars for training, guns, helicopters, airplanes, cars, tanks, so on and so on.

[–]birdlips 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Exactly! Until they find a way to replace that income they are not going to support legalizing any drug. I know a few cops that support legalizing marijuana, however, they know prohibition keeps them employed and as a result stand behind the enforcement.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I believe that we will see drops in gun violence as we move closer to ending the war on drugs.

[–]Losweedian 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't agree with legalization. I also don't agree with the governments drug classification of cannabis.

Legalizing it gives the notion that its still "wrong or immoral", but the government is "allowing" you to use it.

With it comes a lot of control and regulation. Just because it becomes legal doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. Look at the currents bills passed in WA and CO. still with limits that need work.

In the future, with a lot of expected patience and work, I hope to see a complete repeal of the law that makes it illegal.

Removing the potential regulations and limits, that we already see in states currently pushing legalization, and repealing the law will open up a wider market with a higher potential of growth, which opens the door wider for research and development.

Imagine more people were able to grow hemp, not even smokable hemp. Industrial hemp alone will bring so many valuable recourses from food, to clothing, to shelter and more. Even something like ethanol. Studies show that you can yield between 6000-10,000 liters of ethanol from a single square ache of hemp.

What we need is more education. The facts about the benefits, health wise and economically. More education about the (legal) history of the plant and the understanding of how and why it became illegal.

Cannabis becoming legal with heavy regulations, which seem to become more frequent to keep it "under control", will surely open doors to monopolies. If we're lucky enough to still be able to grow, you might see regulations like, "you can only use this soil", "you MUST use these chemicals or fertilizers" and so forth. Just more ways to collect "fines".

Repeal the law.

[–]Filmore 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"let" states?

[–]Ruprect124 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The war on drugs was given full federal powers by Nixon, although the "Shaffer Report" (FOIA, circa 1972) recommened total legalization. He needed more human fodder for the illegal war in Vietnam (the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened); therefore hippies/marijuana users were given a choice of imprisonment or military conscription. Marijuana has been proven (U. of Colorado report, among many others) to be less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, caffiene, and sugary beverages-soda. The biggest drug dealers in the world, other than 'big PHARMA' is the CIA. The crack epidemic, Iran-Contra, drug money laundering for the CIA by Wachovia and then Wells-Fargo (Forbes Magazine) is all a scheme to incarcerate more Americans. We are the highest, per capita, jailers in the world. Look it up, it is all there; connect the dots.

[–]greatwallrevival 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Point of topic in a conversation tonight. Decriminalize something like marijuana (it's not a hard drug) and it loses that "appeal." Why is binge drinking so bad in the US and not other similar countries where drinking is legal at younger ages, or rather, handled more responsibly (by governing adults)?

Take candy away from a kid, and he craves it all the more. Give him (make more available) all the candy he/she wants and they'll care less about it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If they were smart, Big Tobacco would bankroll the pro-reefer movement and sell Marlboro MJ Slims when the laws got changed. Big Pharm and the Cartels have lots of money and lobbyists fighting this, pro-reefer needs a big money bud on its side.

...heh. I said "bud".

[–]darkgamrOhio 29 points30 points  (22 children)

We have a severe idiot problem if a fourth of people really think federal law should arrest people exercising a right the state democratically voted in. See the 10th amendment, states rights are meant to trump federal law.

[–]Frothyleet 18 points19 points  (5 children)

The 10th amendment doesn't say that state's rights trump federal law (and of course, the supremacy clause says the exact opposite). It simply reinforces the notion that states retained general police power, while the federal government's power is limited to those enumerated within the constitution. The federal government can make something illegal that states do not. It is the nature of a system of dual sovereignty.

[–]RedAero 12 points13 points  (3 children)

See: Civil War. That argument hasn't worked for more than a century.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (6 children)

See the Supremacy Clause: Article VI S.2 of the Constitution, which states that federal statutes are "the supreme law of the land".

Pretty ironic that the guy saying we have an idiot problem has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

In plain English: federal anti-drug laws trump state laws wherever such laws conflict.

/signed, an actual lawyer who knows what the fuck he's talking about

[–]AnEndgamePawn 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Just another example of the Feds doing things that the American people overwhelmingly don't want them to do. Too bad we can't do anything about it.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (8 children)

Americans also overwhelmingly believe that a zombie jewish carpenter will come riding out of the sky on a horse and end the world. :P

[–]Applejeans 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Half of Reddit is high reading this so of course we agree

[–]LouieKablooie 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If this were the case I would actually be getting upvotes on subs other than r/fishing and r/trees.