• Colorado's pot legalization causing headaches for surrounding states
    65 replies, posted
How about they....oh I don't know..legalize it? I mean, if they're bitching about the headaches, surely pot (and the massive amount of money that could be earned from legalizing it) would end their problems. The legalization would pay for itself eventually. They literally have NO reason not to do this. Unless you count the privatized prison system.
[QUOTE=TestECull;45023092]Well then the answer is simple. IF you cannot afford prosecuting people over this stuff legalize it yourself.[/QUOTE] That's brilliant: Legalize pot, and then use the tax revenue from it being legalized to prosecute people who are smoking it illegally! TA-DA! :downs:
[QUOTE=Trumple;45025813]If everyone started playing the stupid "knockout" game in your state and you got flooded with court costs, would your argument of "legalize it" still be the same?[/QUOTE] Please don't abuse the tactic of constructing hypotheticals
[QUOTE=Trumple;45025813]If everyone started playing the stupid "knockout" game in your state and you got flooded with court costs, would your argument of "legalize it" still be the same?[/QUOTE] nigga is you stupid [highlight](User was banned for this post ("shit post" - GunFox))[/highlight]
They are acting like nobody legalizing it saw it coming and crying about expanded black markets. Of course it will create black markets in surrounding states, those black markets just won't be run by fucking Mexican cartels. A bunch of college kids and trailer trash running weed is far better than the cartel doing it.
Marijuana is like banana and radioactive and gives cancer
[QUOTE=catbarf;45026400]He used an extreme example to show that 'if it's expensive to prosecute you should just legalize it' is a bad argument and alone isn't a good reason to legalize anything, why is that hard to comprehend?[/QUOTE] okay but rather than just saying 'IT' say what IT is, 'if it's expensive to prosecute you should just legalize weed' makes sense, 'if its expensive to prosecute you should just legalize knocking random people out' it's a good argument concerning an almost harmless substance it's not a good argument concerning the knock out game
I think the legalization gives the coloradians headaches too because of the high amounts of THC in their brains. Pun intended. 8-)
Keep it up Colorado! Any community which suffers because of its own backwards-ass laws deserves to stand on its own financially. It's absolutely disgusting to me that prohibition like this still exists, I hope they cave under the pressure and lives can cease to be ruined over something which is otherwise harmless.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45025833]Yes, shame on those small-town sheriffs and county courts for doing their job as dictated by the state and having to spend lots of money and overtime to deal with it, they should just make weed legal with their nonexistent legislative power. Did you guys just read the title and immediately jump to replying?[/QUOTE] yes because clearly those small-town sheriffs and county courts should be scapegoating the neighboring states and not trying to actually fix the problem in their own backyard
Honestly I can see a better side to this in the big picture. With the influx of pot from Colorado hitting the streets and pushing stuff from Central America out it's cutting the cash going there which in turn removes a source of income to fuel the cartels. It also keeps the money in country, which helps the economy. Of course I am being an optimist, and quite frankly I don't see any problem with folks smoking pot.
Boo hoo maybe those states should start getting with the times and pass laws of their own.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45026400]He used an extreme example to show that 'if it's expensive to prosecute you should just legalize it' is a bad argument and alone isn't a good reason to legalize anything, why is that hard to comprehend?[/QUOTE] he used an example that has a readily obvious reason for enforcing its illegal status against something that is a victimless crime and for which literally no good argument for its illegal status exists.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;45029855]yes because clearly those small-town sheriffs and county courts should be scapegoating the neighboring states and not trying to actually fix the problem in their own backyard[/QUOTE] Then tell me what they should be doing. Should they be ignoring the laws handed down for them to enforce by the state and lose their jobs? On what precedent is it the role of local sheriffs to decide what state and federal legislation is valid? They can't legalize weed so what are they supposed to do? [QUOTE=Venezuelan;45030153]he used an example that has a readily obvious reason for enforcing its illegal status against something that is a victimless crime and for which literally no good argument for its illegal status exists.[/QUOTE] Good, you've recognized the point of his analogy. Now you're arguing that weed should be legalized because it is victimless (an absolutely true and solid argument) rather than solely because it is expensive to prosecute (a shitty argument, which becomes obvious when you apply it to an extreme example like harming other people). The point of using an extreme case like the knockout game is to show why the argument in principle is wrong- nothing has ever been legalized [I]solely[/I] because it is expensive to enforce a ban, and the fact that it is expensive or difficult to enforce is not implicitly an argument for legalization.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45030335]Then tell me what they should be doing. Should they be ignoring the laws handed down for them to enforce by the state and lose their jobs? On what precedent is it the role of local sheriffs to decide what state and federal legislation is valid? They can't legalize weed so what are they supposed to do?[/QUOTE] Keep doing his job regardless and not try to sue someone else for daring to have autonomy? Petition his own state to decriminalize? [editline]8th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;45030335]Good, you've recognized the point of his analogy. Now you're arguing that weed should be legalized because it is victimless (an absolutely true and solid argument) rather than solely because it is expensive to prosecute (a shitty argument, which becomes obvious when you apply it to an extreme example like harming other people). The point of using an extreme case like the knockout game is to show why the argument in principle is wrong- nothing has ever been legalized [I]solely[/I] because it is expensive to enforce a ban, and the fact that it is expensive or difficult to enforce is not implicitly an argument for legalization.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone believes that that's the "sole reason" and if you interpreted it that way it's either miscommunication or seeing what you want to see. Obviously the same argument would not have popped up in a thread about a violent crime. Pot being victimless is just so well established that it's a given, no need to reiterate.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45030335]Good, you've recognized the point of his analogy. Now you're arguing that weed should be legalized because it is victimless (an absolutely true and solid argument) rather than solely because it is expensive to prosecute (a shitty argument, which becomes obvious when you apply it to an extreme example like harming other people). The point of using an extreme case like the knockout game is to show why the argument in principle is wrong- nothing has ever been legalized [I]solely[/I] because it is expensive to enforce a ban, and the fact that it is expensive or difficult to enforce is not implicitly an argument for legalization.[/QUOTE] ah, so he was being pedantic is what you're saying
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;45030367]Keep doing his job regardless and not try to sue someone else for daring to have autonomy? Petition his own state to decriminalize?[/QUOTE] The article says that only one state official has stated he won't rule out the [I]possibility[/I] of suing. Which would be a bone-headed move, but nobody is being sued and most people working in the state are just trying to do their jobs. What is Mark Overman, a sheriff who's having to work overtime to keep up with the courts, supposed to do, and why are people in this thread blaming him for a situation completely out of his control?
[QUOTE=catbarf;45030411] What is Mark Overman, a sheriff who's having to work overtime to keep up with the courts, supposed to do[/QUOTE] his job, which is no harder as a consequence of his state's policies in a changing world no one's blaming the dude (except the one who wanted to sue), but whining about it is to express sentiment that he wishes it would change which is bullshit. [editline]8th June 2014[/editline] actually I'll own up, I kinda skimmed and missed this [QUOTE]In August of last year, the Justice Department issued a press release addressing the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington. Despite the fact the drug is still illegal at the federal level, the department said it had "informed the governors of both states that it is deferring its right to challenge their legalization laws at this time," as long as certain conditions were met. One of those conditions was "implementing effective measures to prevent diversion of marijuana outside of the regulated system and to other states."[/QUOTE] there might be a standing then, depends what defines "effective measures", I don't know how it would be possible to control the flow effeciently
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;45030410]ah, so he was being pedantic is what you're saying[/QUOTE] As catbarf kindly pointed out, I was highlighting the issue that stuff shouldn't be legalised just because it is costly to enforce. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for legalization of marijuana despite never intending to smoke the stuff, but using the point of "just legalize it if it costs so much" is silly and backwards
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45031702]Except not only does it cost a lot to enforce, it also jails people for no logical reason, and is illegal due to a successful lobby back in the '30s.[/QUOTE] I agree, it's silly that states choose not to legalize it - think of the tax money! I'm not against the people saying we should legalize it, I'm against those saying we should legalize it BECAUSE of this news. If stuff became legal by being costly to prosecute, we'd have very few laws, and what would be the point of them?
[QUOTE=catbarf;45030335]Good, you've recognized the point of his analogy. Now you're arguing that weed should be legalized because it is victimless (an absolutely true and solid argument) rather than solely because it is expensive to prosecute (a shitty argument, which becomes obvious when you apply it to an extreme example like harming other people). The point of using an extreme case like the knockout game is to show why the argument in principle is wrong- nothing has ever been legalized [I]solely[/I] because it is expensive to enforce a ban, and the fact that it is expensive or difficult to enforce is not implicitly an argument for legalization.[/QUOTE] it becomes a good co-argument if you put it alongside with the fact that it is victimless, as it demonstrates that one isn't actually accomplishing anything for the greater good by throwing people in prison for using/selling weed. one can then go further to argue about the negative effects that throwing people in prison has on families, communities, and individuals. but as an argument of its own, yeah, it's not very solid.
the problem is those soccer moms managed to write treaties that were more ironclad than anything modern lawyers could concieve of and there's no way to remove pot or even bump it down a level [quote]Cindy Fazey, former Chief of Demand Reduction for the United Nations Drug Control Programme, has pointed out that[B] it would be nearly impossible to loosen international cannabis regulations.[/B] Even if the Commission on Narcotic Drugs removed cannabis from Schedule IV of the Single Convention, prohibitions against the plant would remain imbedded in Article 28 and other parts of the treaty. Fazey cited amendment of the Articles and state-by-state denunciation as two theoretical possibilities for changing cannabis' international legal status, while pointing out that both face substantial barriers.[/quote]
You guys are flippin crazy. If you ever think Utah is going to legalize pot you might as well also believe North Korea will convert to a capitalist democracy
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45031752]Well yes. The problem is that it shouldn't have become illegal in the first place, we allowed the '30's equivalent to soccer moms to have their way, and then we didn't ever take a step back and say "you know what, this is totally stupid". If anything the states should take colorado's success as reason to legalize it, thus eliminating the burden of "expensive prosecution" and restoring the rights of their citizens to do what ever the fuck they want to do as long as they aren't harming anyone.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I agree. That wasn't what the article was about though, we're talking about two different things here
[QUOTE=BenJammin';45032384]You guys are flippin crazy. If you ever think Utah is going to legalize pot you might as well also believe North Korea will convert to a capitalist democracy[/QUOTE] they once said that the south would never lose slavery
[QUOTE=catbarf;45026400]He used an extreme example to show that 'if it's expensive to prosecute you should just legalize it' is a bad argument and alone isn't a good reason to legalize anything, why is that hard to comprehend?[/QUOTE] It is not an extreme example, it is an irrelevant example. How is smoking weed which does little harm compare at all to assaulting people intended to do harm?
[QUOTE=matt000024;45036733]It is not an extreme example, it is an irrelevant example. How is smoking weed which does little harm compare at all to assaulting people intended to do harm?[/QUOTE] That's not the point The article is not about whether weed should be legalised or not, it's about the pressure that some external event has placed on the justice system of a particular region. My example stands to illustrate that nothing should be legalised just because it becomes costly to enforce it, NOT anything to do with whether or not weed/knockout game/etc. should be legalised in general. That's quite a different discussion I don't see how you're having such a hard time understanding this, it's quite simple e: To anyone else about to respond to my point, pls don't start rambling about why you think weed should be legalised, that's not the point
At the very least decriminalize small quantifies and slap a fine on it. Bam. Profit instead of spending.
[QUOTE=Trumple;45036935]That's not the point The article is not about whether weed should be legalised or not, it's about the pressure that some external event has placed on the justice system of a particular region. My example stands to illustrate that nothing should be legalised just because it becomes costly to enforce it, NOT anything to do with whether or not weed/knockout game/etc. should be legalised in general. That's quite a different discussion I don't see how you're having such a hard time understanding this, it's quite simple e: To anyone else about to respond to my point, pls don't start rambling about why you think weed should be legalised, that's not the point[/QUOTE] no the point is obviously noone would use the 'it's a waste of money to enforce this law' in regards to something other than weed
[QUOTE=Levelog;45040291]At the very least decriminalize small quantifies and slap a fine on it. Bam. Profit instead of spending.[/QUOTE] The point is that this is more than just possession, it's trafficking. Trafficking isn't even decriminalized in places that decriminalize it. Still think it should be at the very least decriminalized.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.