Will Marijuana be legalized under Trump?

[PaulF]

LOL, I'm not aware of anyone robbing and looting to get their Starbuck's fix. I'm not buying the "caffeine is just like these other drugs" canard

If they're not so bad, should I assume you would go hunting in a party where some members were known to use LSD or MDMA or amphetamines (does this include Meth?) or natural psychedelics regularly? Hunting can have deadly consequences for those not at the top of their game

The same is true for me sharing the road with them or needing to rely on them in a dangerous workplace. Give me drug free/random testing please

I've never known anyone whose coffee consumption would lead me to doubt them in similar situations. Perhaps I don't get out enough

ETA: I notice an entire class of 'recreational' drugs missing (opioids). Why would that be?

Ok...I’m not offering the “caffeine is just as bad as heroin” canard. Is that really what you got from my post?

Mind altering drugs fall across a broad spectrum...some far more innocuous than others. There are plenty of good reasons to avoid any or all of them, including personal safety. Literally no one is making the case that a drugged-out life is preferable, admirable, or personally desirable.

My point isn’t that drugs should be socially acceptable, but goverment prohibition isn’t compatible with my view of personal liberty.

...and here’s the pragmatic kicker: BugI, you’re already on the roads and at work with these people. Passing a drug test is as simple as buying fake urine from a head shop. The world is literally full of functioning drug users, whether that fits with your ideology or not...Prohibition simply does at work as drug control policy.

I’m not suggesting that people should use these substances, only that they already do...and in many cases (most, maybe) the people around them have no idea. If we (as a society) want people to live a sober life (which is a good thing, I think...) the markets are still th best way...social stigma and limited access to legitimate employment do far more to keep people off drugs than the fear of criminal liability does.

I think it is appropriate to use state power to impose legal consequences on behaviors that effect others, like driving while intoxicated. I don’t see why someone should face criminal charges for partying in their own home.

 

[jamil]

Like I said, people wanna do drugs, they do drugs, and we throw a small portion of those in jail. Not a deterrent. Just a path to jail for some people.

If you want to stop people from doing drugs, you can't. At best you can appeal to some of them to stop. Most won't anyway.

But, I'd say I don't support initiatives that help people harm themselves with drugs. The free needle policy, for example, doesn't seem to help society overall.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Semi-related?

Members of the multi-billionaire philanthropic Sackler family that owns the maker of prescription painkiller OxyContin are facing mass litigation and likely criminal investigation over the opioids crisis still ravaging America.

 

[BugI02]

Ok...I’m not offering the “caffeine is just as bad as heroin” canard. Is that really what you got from my post?

Mind altering drugs fall across a broad spectrum...some far more innocuous than others. There are plenty of good reasons to avoid any or all of them, including personal safety. Literally no one is making the case that a drugged-out life is preferable, admirable, or personally desirable.

My point isn’t that drugs should be socially acceptable, but goverment prohibition isn’t compatible with my view of personal liberty.

...and here’s the pragmatic kicker: BugI, you’re already on the roads and at work with these people. Passing a drug test is as simple as buying fake urine from a head shop. The world is literally full of functioning drug users, whether that fits with your ideology or not...Prohibition simply does at work as drug control policy.

[Your lack of familiarity with the realities of a serious work drug test/drug free workplace policy leads me to believe you do not work in one. As Tom Petty said, "You can believe what you want to believe"]

[And you didn't answer the question about joining a hunting party, which should be somewhat indicative of how you would feel if it is absolutely your personal safety on the line as contrasted with some generic example. I sometimes work in environments where the least explosive chemical in that environment is gasoline. I'm very choosey about who I wish to work with or around]

I’m not suggesting that people should use these substances, only that they already do...and in many cases (most, maybe) the people around them have no idea. If we (as a society) want people to live a sober life (which is a good thing, I think...) the markets are still th best way...social stigma and limited access to legitimate employment do far more to keep people off drugs than the fear of criminal liability does.

I think it is appropriate to use state power to impose legal consequences on behaviors that effect others, like driving while intoxicated. I don’t see why someone should face criminal charges for partying in their own home.

I certainly will concede that it is unlikely that we can eliminate drug-addled behavior from our society, but I don't think officially condoning or tolerating it leads to a lessening of the problem and its inevitable consequences

As for the last point, of course no one ever gets intoxicated at home and then takes it out into the public space. IMO society still needs to view drug mediated escapism as the weakness of mind that it is and hold these people in contempt and up to ridicule

 

[PaulF]

I don’t hunt...but no, I would not join a hunting party if I believed any of the other members were intoxicated. I would also refuse to ride in a vehicle with them, let them watch my children (that’s a hypothetical...i can’t have kids), or put them on the job.

I would, however, go hunting with someone I know to be an occasional user of illicit drugs, so long as I am confident in their *current* sobriety.

Recreactional drug use is not a 1:1 analog to drug abuse or public nuisance...I know it runs agains the popular taking points, but people can (and MANY people do) use mind-altering substances sparingly and responsibly.

There are valid comparisons to gun ownership here...just because people can (and some actually will) use guns for anti-social purposes doesn’t validate prohibiting everyone from owning them.

I don't think it's an appropriate use of state force to stop an otherwise law-abiding citizen from dropping acid and watching Fantasia on a Saturday afternoon off at home. Do you? If so, why? Are you afraid that person might drink too much sweet tea or nap too long?

Addiction is bad, so are many respects of public intoxication. I agree there is a valid use of state authority in certain scenarios, but getting high and watching TV isn’t one of those scenarios...at least in my world view.

 

[jamil]

I certainly will concede that it is unlikely that we can eliminate drug-addled behavior from our society, but I don't think officially condoning or tolerating it leads to a lessening of the problem and its inevitable consequences

Who are you to "tolerate" behavior? Causing physical harm to others, sure. A stoned person causes you harm, prosecute that stoned person to the fullest extent of the law, same as you would a sober person who causes you harm. Government's primary role is to protect citizens' natural rights, and should pretty much stay out of it other than that. But officially tolerating "societal ills", as if it's any of your business? Mind your own business. You're using the same arguments against drugs that the crazy ass *****es of the temperance movement used against alcohol in the early 1900s.

As for the last point, of course no one ever gets intoxicated at home and then takes it out into the public space. IMO society still needs to view drug mediated escapism as the weakness of mind that it is and hold these people in contempt and up to ridicule

So it's not that you're opposed to the tools of the left, you're just opposed to them using those tools against you. Mob-shaming is for *******. When you say "society" it's really just individuals. And it's not a monolithic attitude that society can have for or against something. Individuals disagree. Sometimes society needs to mind its own collective business one individual at a time.

I don't like drugs. I don't use them. I don't like alcohol either. I don't drink. You? Not my business. As long as you're not harming others--and let's be clear, I'm not talking about facile tangential concoctions of applying the term--I don't care if you drink scotch whisky all night long, but I'd prefer you didn't die behind the wheel or harm other people while intoxicated. At that point it does become "society's" business.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Who are you to "tolerate" behavior? Causing physical harm to others, sure. A stoned person causes you harm, prosecute that stoned person to the fullest extent of the law, same as you would a sober person who causes you harm. Government's primary role is to protect citizens' natural rights, and should pretty much stay out of it other than that. But officially tolerating "societal ills", as if it's any of your business? Mind your own business. You're using the same arguments against drugs that the crazy ass *****es of the temperance movement used against alcohol in the early 1900s.



So it's not that you're opposed to the tools of the left, you're just opposed to them using those tools against you. Mob-shaming is for *******. When you say "society" it's really just individuals. And it's not a monolithic attitude that society can have for or against something. Individuals disagree. Sometimes society needs to mind its own collective business one individual at a time.

I don't like drugs. I don't use them. I don't like alcohol either. I don't drink. You? Not my business. As long as you're not harming others--and let's be clear, I'm not talking about facile tangential concoctions of applying the term--I don't care if you drink scotch whisky all night long, but I'd prefer you didn't die behind the wheel or harm other people while intoxicated. At that point it does become "society's" business.

When it intersects with the welfare state?

When/if we ever arrive at that day when "I" won't be forcibly financially responsible for your actions, then I won't have any "skin in your game". As long as I won't have to pay extra to support fat peoples' eating habit induced medical complications or the collateral damage of broken families due to drug/alcoho addiction, then I will truly have no business in your business. But as long as the welfare state exists, people will feel they have the right to interject what they believe is best into your life.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Indiana Legislature will not be considering medical or recreational marijuana use in the 2019 session. Heard that on WTHR. This link is from the .gov webiste:

Legislation by Subject Index - Indiana General Assembly, 2019 Session

 

[BrettonJudy7]

With the passing of the CBD oil bill we will see more legislation int he future. Sen. Blake Doriot has been working on a bill to allow for the growth of industrial hemp. He argued last year in the General Assembly on the benefits of industrial hemp for the state of Indiana as an economical boost. There are more and more legislators considering medical cannabis bills.

However, that being said, there are still some strong opponents to medical marijuana, and marijuana bills of any type. Sen. Mike Young is a skeptic, and a great influencer in debates. In total, I don't have the bill count on hand anymore, there were about eight Senators who voted no to CBD oil, who also would have voted "no" to medicinal marijuana.

Indiana legislation has to take things one small step at a time. Last session the major focus was on Sunday sales. This next session, I'm sure that the focus will be on a hate crimes bill as it was shot down in the last session. Sen. David Long said in a press conference that Indiana was not ready for a hate crimes bill at that time. Well, with the Carmel synagogue incident, and a progressive Democrat as the new Senator for Carmel district, I wouldn't be surprised if the focal point of the Senate this year will be on hate crimes. Effectively shelving the marijuana debate for another time.

Sen. Bohacek has already filed for a hate crimes bill.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

It's frustrating that the law makers are not more in tune with the residents of the state.

I did a quick Google but didn't come up with Mich but I feel like the poll numbers ouave seen shows more than half of thoosiers support at least medical.

 

[BugI02]

Who are you to "tolerate" behavior? Causing physical harm to others, sure. A stoned person causes you harm, prosecute that stoned person to the fullest extent of the law, same as you would a sober person who causes you harm. Government's primary role is to protect citizens' natural rights, and should pretty much stay out of it other than that. But officially tolerating "societal ills", as if it's any of your business? Mind your own business. You're using the same arguments against drugs that the crazy ass *****es of the temperance movement used against alcohol in the early 1900s.

[Did you miss the adverb in the partial quote your getting the vapors over? I said officially condoning or tolerating, as in writing into law - so we're not talking about just me tolerating something]

So it's not that you're opposed to the tools of the left, you're just opposed to them using those tools against you. Mob-shaming is for *******. When you say "society" it's really just individuals. And it's not a monolithic attitude that society can have for or against something. Individuals disagree. Sometimes society needs to mind its own collective business one individual at a time.

I don't like drugs. I don't use them. I don't like alcohol either. I don't drink. You? Not my business. As long as you're not harming others--and let's be clear, I'm not talking about facile tangential concoctions of applying the term--I don't care if you drink scotch whisky all night long, but I'd prefer you didn't die behind the wheel or harm other people while intoxicated. At that point it does become "society's" business.

This sort of dodge is facile, almost to the level of virtue signaling. You don't want the coercive tools of government used to dictate acceptable public behavior, but you think public behavior should be acceptable. If the government doesn't set the rules, and society at large doesn't set the rules (which is where shaming comes in) then there are no rules. Are you seriously suggesting we rely on people's better natures to ameliorate the problem? How has that worked out with public drunkeness, which is emblematic of use of a legal intoxicant? Granted there are stoners sharing the roads and lying doggo in the workplace right now, do you think this will become less of a problem if official sanction is given to their drug of choice? I'll pass

 

[bwframe]

It's frustrating that the law makers are not more in tune with the residents of the state.

I did a quick Google but didn't come up with Mich but I feel like the poll numbers ouave seen shows more than half of thoosiers support at least medical.

You're talking about the same state that has been forced by circumstance into needle programs and issuing Narcan to emergency services, right?

 

[fullmetaljesus]

You're talking about the same state that has been forced by circumstance into needle programs and issuing Narcan to emergency services, right?

Forgive my question.
I've had a stressful week and am not firing on all cylinders.

I'm not sure what you mean...

Again sorry.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Massachusetts mayor first in line as recreational marijuana sales begin

 

[BrettonJudy7]

It's frustrating that the law makers are not more in tune with the residents of the state.

I did a quick Google but didn't come up with Mich but I feel like the poll numbers ouave seen shows more than half of thoosiers support at least medical.

Actually yeah you are right. Last year the Senate did a survey for constituents to fill out and explain what issues were most important to them. Although it was not an overwhelming amount, it was a majority of Hoosiers who said they would support medicinal marijuana. The sample size was rather small, only about 3,000 people per Senator who completed the survey. Give or take more or less from 41 Republican Senators, and it was close to 123,000 people. A majority said they wanted medicinal marijuana, but a slight majority. I do not remember exact numbers.

 

[MCgrease08]

Vote To Federally Legalize Marijuana Planned In Congress

A key congressional committee plans to hold a historic vote on a bill to end the federal prohibition of marijuana next week, two sources with knowledge of the soon-to-be-announced action said.

The legislation, sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and set aside funding to begin repairing the damage of the war on drugs, which has been disproportionately waged against communities of color.

Those programs—such as job training and legal aid for people impacted by prohibition enforcement, loans for small cannabis businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and efforts to minimize barriers to licensing and employment in the legal industry—would be paid for with a new federal five percent tax on marijuana sales instituted under the bill, and some of them would be administered by a new Cannabis Justice Office in the Department of Justice.

 

[jamil]

I support decriminalization of MJ, but not federal funding to help businesses. That’s ridiculous.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

I'm for this but I'd rather see the tax money go law enforcement, schools, and roads.

 

[Jludo]

Ya why torpedo legalization with all the extra bs. I guess they're incapable of passing a bill that just reads 'to remove marijuana from the controlled substances act'.

Maybe it's just a negotiating strategy, Republicans will disagree with the taxes and spending then it's 'ok then we could cut that and just leave the legalization'

Also one problem I noticed with weed not being legal is that a lot of the nations top talent in things like cyber security like to smoke and are barred from working for the federal government. Leaving a lot of national defense talent on the table because of a dumb rule.

 

[NKBJ]

Wouldn't it be weird if they legalized freedom.