Article

2010-10-19 Home Front: Politix

Former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders supports legalizing pot

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2010-10-19 00:48|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 Sorry. That last sentence not in italics is mine.

Hahahaha!

Posted by gorb 2010-10-19 00:54|| 2010-10-19 00:54|| Front Page Top

#2 Look. Providing pot to the US is a multi-billion dollar industry. Probably a hundreds of billions of dollar industry. All the enforcement to date doesn't stop it.

After some many decades, one can probably come to the conclusion we aren't GOING to stop it. So why would we not want to legalize it?

Two reasons:

1. The people who are profiting from illegal pot want to continue to profit from illegal pot. They see "illegal" as simply a barrier of entry to industrial sized competition. Legitimate companies won't get into the business so that leaves all of the profits to organized crime, just the way they want it. These criminals have a lot of politicians in their pockets who in turn will fight tooth and nail to keep it illegal.

2. The drug "interdiction" industry is also huge. Many politicians use drug interdiction to bring huge amounts of pork barrel spending back home. The budget of the DEA is nearly 3 billion dollars and employs over 10,000 people. And they probably interdict less than 1% of the pot in this country. But there are politicians who will also fight tooth and nail to keep those programs running.

The reason pot is illegal is because there are a lot of very powerful people making lot very large amount of money from the way things are now.

Posted by crosspatch 2010-10-19 01:11|| 2010-10-19 01:11|| Front Page Top

#3 "We really need to get over this love affair with the fetus and start worrying about children."

Joycelyn Elders

Posted by Besoeker 2010-10-19 06:41|| 2010-10-19 06:41|| Front Page Top

#4 These criminals have a lot of politicians in their pockets who in turn will fight tooth and nail to keep it illegal.

One only has to look at the 'legalized' alcohol business on the link between the 'businessmen' and the politicians to keep in place monopolies on distribution and price manipulations and patronage. While our federal courts are swinging the 'commerce clause' like a warhammer to build their vision of a Utopian society by extending authority over anything that might have the faintest hint of a commercial transaction even though bound within a state, they seem very reluctant at best in dealing with the free flow of spirits across state borders. There will be no 'solution' that doesn't just move the problem from one category to another.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-10-19 08:42|| 2010-10-19 08:42|| Front Page Top

#5 Why not legalize it, after all the British and the Dutch both found their experimental tolerance with Pot was a failure. Naturally we should try.

Reminds me of the Swedish experiment with socialism that failed and was rolled back a decade ago, yet they're socialism is held up as a model by ignorant people everywhere.

Yet nobody holds up the Baltic States who declared a flat tax and watched their economies boom and the tax revenue roll in. No, lets follow the failed experiments time and time again.

Posted by rjschwarz 2010-10-19 09:18|| 2010-10-19 09:18|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, it's never done me any harm!

Oh wait, this is crack...

Posted by J.Elders 2010-10-19 15:08|| 2010-10-19 15:08|| Front Page Top

#7 One thing people don't often think about, in my opinion, is that "the government" is *YOU*.

When you say you support a law that makes something illegal, you are saying that YOU want to prevent your neighbor from doing something. Now if that something actually causes you harm, like throwing hand grenades in their front yard or storing dynamite in their back shed, sure. But if my neighbor wants to hit his bong in the privacy of his home, I don't have a problem with that. He can go ahead and make himself just as stupid as he wants to, I am not going to show up at his door with a gun (which is what law enforcement is ... it is an extension of YOU) and throw him in jail for it. That is simply idiotic.

Posted by crosspatch 2010-10-19 15:37|| 2010-10-19 15:37|| Front Page Top

#8 There is still the question about how many beaurocrats will need to be supported per serving: USDA, FDA, Wed Tobacco Firearms, picker's union, local stipulations, don't lick toad commercials, so forth. What will that do to the price per serving as compared to just moonshining it? Jobs created sure, but who gets that tab unless the price per serving is taxed out of the consumer's market?

All the positive goals economically can be accomplished IMHO not by legalization but decriminalizing. Can grow for personal, cannot sell or distribute to minors without big fines, no consuming in public. Take something like a hunter's safety class, get a phishing license, OK to go if you have less than x on ya.

Now morally, not going to tackle that one, I agree and disagree with both sides. That guy next door who uses my FUTA to stay home and play video games until 40 years old then, yes, that would according to the current setup piss me off (why I like the idea of drug testing for those who receive any gov money and that includes alcohol). In my experience most work somewhere, and have a much better post big game work rating than the beer drinkers. I see it is helpful medically but worry about the potential in-your-face coolness advertising approach the alcohol industry takes.

Posted by swksvolFF 2010-10-19 17:49|| 2010-10-19 17:49|| Front Page Top

#9 Mmmmm. Doritos.

Posted by ryuge 2010-10-19 18:08|| 2010-10-19 18:08|| Front Page Top

#10 So wait...we're criminalizing tobacco and people want to uncriminalize pot? Sorry, if smoking is bad for you, then why would we allow it more?

I'm sick of this, either we have morals or we don't, just pick one. If we do have morals, then let's bloody actually have an actual war on drugs. Napalm the drug fields, execute dealers, smugglers and users. It'll fade in 2 generations.

Posted by Silentbrick 2010-10-19 18:32|| 2010-10-19 18:32|| Front Page Top

#11 Marijuana is NOT innocuous. It isn't as harmful or addictive as cocaine or heroin, but is is not innocent. If somebody wants to get stoned in their own home, fine. But what if they show up at work stoned? Especially if their job is to fly an airplane, drive a truck, or operate on someone's brain? Do you want your doctor stoned when he cuts into your skull?
People may not fly into marijuana rages like they do with crack or angel dust. They just sit passive - but do you want everyone to be passive?

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2010-10-19 22:11|| 2010-10-19 22:11|| Front Page Top

#12 yep. "Impaired" is an issue

Posted by Frank G 2010-10-19 22:17|| 2010-10-19 22:17|| Front Page Top

23:55 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
23:52 linker
23:40 ryuge
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:14 JosephMendiola
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:09 Frank G
23:01 Barbara Skolaut
22:54 Pappy
22:47 Pappy
22:41 Frank G
22:17 Frank G
22:16 Frank G
22:11 Rambler in Virginia
22:06 Incredulous
21:59 OldSpook
21:58 OldSpook
21:57 OldSpook
21:57 OldSpook
21:44 Pstanley
21:43 JosephMendiola
21:35 Lone Ranger
21:32 DMFD