OT-The war is lost


Reporting from Oakland -
Oakland's City Council on Tuesday approved an ordinance that could make it
the first city in the state to permit industrial marijuana production, a
path-breaking decision that could spur the commercialization of a crop
largely grown in hidden gardens.
The plan would authorize four potentially enormous pot factories, but makes
no provision for the hundreds of growers who now supply Oakland's four
dispensaries, which sold $28 million in marijuana last year. The council,
however, promised it would develop a plan for these growers before permits
are awarded next year for the four large-scale marijuana operations.
formatting link

So much for the war on drugs.
Sounds like a shovel ready project, they might even
get stimulus funds from obama.
Best Regards
Tom.
Reply to
azotic
Loading thread data ...
Just say NO!
Bob Swinney
Reporting from Oakland - Oakland's City Council on Tuesday approved an ordinance that could make it the first city in the state to permit industrial marijuana production, a path-breaking decision that could spur the commercialization of a crop largely grown in hidden gardens.
The plan would authorize four potentially enormous pot factories, but makes no provision for the hundreds of growers who now supply Oakland's four dispensaries, which sold $28 million in marijuana last year. The council, however, promised it would develop a plan for these growers before permits are awarded next year for the four large-scale marijuana operations.
formatting link
So much for the war on drugs.
Sounds like a shovel ready project, they might even get stimulus funds from obama.
Best Regards Tom.
Reply to
Robert Swinney
The war on drugs was lost before it ever started. Clearly the architects of that policy learned *nothing* from Prohibition.
Reply to
Doug Miller
formatting link
The government is just like the mob. So long as they get their %, everything is fine. They have finally discovered that they cannot control the drugs coming in to the US, so therefore now want to make money on it. Much like the history of alcohol. As you know, there is a huge governmental agency that insures alcohol taxes are collected.
Yes, folks, we are going to have legalized drugs. We already have legalized drugs in several states in the form of easily available legalized marijuana. And it's all going to be under government control and taxes collected, or the feds will bust your butt. Just like alcohol and tobacco. Perhaps you've noticed lately that even government spokespeople are publicly commenting that the laws are unenforceable, and that their manpower aimed at it is wasted.
Steve
visit my blog at
formatting link

Reply to
Steve B
formatting link
The war on marijuana was conceived as a handy means of discriminating against Mexicans and African Americans in the 1920's, and has proven to be so to this day. In that regard it is a continuing success.
formatting link
But aside from that all it's doing is providing lots of economic stimulus for drug gangs, and not a little bit of direct aid and support to the Taliban and any other terrorist group willing to grow all the various kinds of dope there are to grow.
I think anyone who puts their knee-jerk conclusions aside and honestly answers the question "which imposes more of a cost to society: keeping drugs illegal, or legalizing them and controlling them the way we do alcohol?" will come to the conclusion that we're going about this whole thing backwards.
(And before you start: if you're going to say "drugs are bad because they're illegal, and they should be illegal because they're bad" -- don't bother, circular definitions aren't accepted here).
Reply to
Tim Wescott
formatting link
formatting link
This is an opinion from soneone who never used any "drugs". So take it with a grain of salt.
I think that drugs include very disparate chemicals, some relatively harmless (like pot) and some not so benign. They may possibly need to be regulated separately.
i
Reply to
Ignoramus9140
"Steve B" fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.infowest.com:
Far more than "working on it". Have you seen NYC's laws concerning trans-fat and salt limits in restaurant food?
Hey... when I want Alfredo Sauce, the soy-milk version just ain't gonna serve!
LLoyd
Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
formatting link
formatting link
Well, I _did_ take recreational drugs in my youth, and I stopped more because I grew out of it than for any other reason. I know plenty of responsible, reliable, otherwise law abiding citizens who smoke dope (and I used to know a lot more). So I have no moral problems with drug use itself*, nor do I feel that any and all drug use automatically and inevitably becomes uncontrolled, problem drug use.
And I wrestle with that, too. But the drugs that seem to be taking the worst toll on the larger stage are the ones that are the worst locally.
So, if all you do is recognize "Reefer Madness" for the unintentionally ironic comment on compulsive moralists that it is and legalize marijuana, then you've just cut the South American drug lords out of a small, not-too-profitable sideline. But you haven't stopped the real monster.
OTOH, find a way to make cocaine and heroin legal without immediate social collapse, and you'll not only take the heart out of the Mexican drug lords, you'll also remove one of the Taliban's biggest sources of funds.
*
I _do_ have a problem with drug _purchasing_; go out and buy pot, and chances are high that you're tossing your money into a vast criminal enterprise. At best you're buying bullets that'll be loaded into guns that'll be pointed at your friends in law enforcement; at worst you'll be funding god knows what all heinous crimes. But that's just another reason that I think they should be legalized.
Reply to
Tim Wescott
formatting link
IMHO we _can_ control it -- we just can't _stop_ it. Trying to stop it completely is like trying to calm down an obsessive by tying him to a chair -- it gets superficially desirable results for a short while, but it's expensive, cruel, and doesn't solve any problems in the long run.
So to ask "how can we stop this?" is a fools question. The question we should ask is "how can we make this behavior as healthy as possible?".
I think that something much closer to alcohol regulations would work for most drugs -- i.e. if you're over 21 then you can go to a state-approved liquor store and get some, during daylight hours. Make it "legal" but too restrictive and you're back to some guy who's going to serve the same time whether he sells to you or to a 16-year-old, and guess whose going to get high?
Frankly, the best thing to do may be to legalize it on the federal level, and let the states do their own regulating. If the constitution allows, and if you could somehow deal with "island" states, you should probably even leave it a federal crime to transport the stuff into a state that doesn't allow it. That'll give us 50 independent laboratories for figuring out the really best way to proceed, as well as letting each state find its own comfort level (supposition: I'll bet that Kansas and California will have different takes on what's OK).
Reply to
Tim Wescott
Alcohol use ceases to be a "choice" once there is physical addiction. There is no evidence at all that marijuana is physically addictive.
Reply to
rangerssuck
If this planet falls apart this afternoon, and we all go off to caves or tunnels or cliff overhangs to live, tomorrow morning, someone's gonna be selling pussy, booze, drugs, and gambling. We have learned nothing from our history as a species, and still think that we can "control" this behavior. Well, we can't, but we can tax the hell out of it, and day after tomorrow, some clown will come up with that idea when they see money changing hands, and everything needs to be made "fair".
"IT'S JUST NOT FAIR! WAIL! MOAN! SCREAM!"
Or at least, that's what I think...................
Steve
visit my blog at
formatting link

Reply to
Steve B
I have thought for years that the government should provide incentives for tobacco growers to convert to marijuana. It's far less harmful and the tax revenues would be huge.
Reply to
rangerssuck
It's still a choice, although choosing not to gets pretty damned difficult.
Don't tell the DEA that! They want you to believe otherwise.
Reply to
Tim Wescott
formatting link
formatting link
I am 62 years old. I remember seeing "Reefer Madness" and other films during "health" class. And then my real world experience. And then the PBS series showing that marijuana, as well as most "drugs" were use to target minorities, even to the point of murder. And how one administrator after another has failed dismally.
I think that drugs are a choice just like alcohol, sex, gambling, smoking, and probably a couple of other things. I think it's all safe to say we have weaved in and out of the opium den at least one time in our life, being "bad". It's whether you choose to stay there, or not. Alcohol has been made a drug of the masses so they can placate and self medicate themselves IF THEY CHOOSE.
Making marijuana legal will sure free up a lot of resources, increase tax revenue (the current point of this thrust) and let the masses do what they will with their free time.
People who do not choose to indulge will be free, as they are now, to choose and maintain a better quality of life.
Next thing they'll be wanting to tell us is what we can feed our kids, and what we can eat at a ball game.
What's that?
They are already working on that?
sigh ............
I'm outta here. ;-)
Steve
visit my blog at
formatting link

Reply to
Steve B
formatting link
formatting link
THAT I agree with. I am a "flower child", being a teenager in the sixties. I've been around the block so many times, I'm still dizzy. I can say from experience that there is a world of difference between a pot smoker, a tweaker, a junkie, etc. Seen a lot of people lose a lot. Buried a lot of friends.
Yes, Grasshoppa, there is a difference. And anyone who says different just isn't informed.
This is an opinion from someone who did use "drugs". So, take it with a grain of salt.
Steve
visit my blog at
formatting link

Reply to
Steve B
And we keep voting in the same people. It's not even a Democrats vs. Republican thing -- Republicans will cry "state's rights" to get votes, but give Kansas a chance to impose its morals on California and watch those same folks busily undermine state's rights right and left.
Reply to
Tim Wescott
"Tim Wescott" wrote
The federal government is proving every day that it is incapable of butting out of state's rights and just doing the duties assigned to it by the Constitution. It proves daily that it does not honor the Constitution. Your proposal is a good idea, but Washington is not going to give up supervising such a large sum of money. As it is proving again and again daily. The states and people are simply too dumb to do things for themselves is the attitude of our government.
Steve
visit my blog at
formatting link

Reply to
Steve B
Haven't they realized that there's a salt shaker on every table?
Duh.
Steve
visit my blog at
formatting link

Reply to
Steve B
Where were the states' rights people when the feds imposed themselves on Illinois in the McDonald case? That was a clear violation -- every conservative Constitutionalist, even Anton Scalia, scoffed at the idea of "substantive due process" applied to impose on the states and violate their sovereignty. At least, then did until McDonald.
Let's guess here...there will be no substantive responses.
Reply to
Ed Huntress

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.