Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  decrim vs legalization
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: decrim vs legalization  (Read 3905 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pete1071

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
decrim vs legalization
« on: June 13, 2011, 02:51:33 AM »

Though I do agree that decriminalization of cannabis is a step in the right direction,
It still doesn't solve the problems inherent with the black market of cannabis.

In a decrim environment, you still have to deal with some flakey dude and whatever strain he happens to have on hand.

In an environment of legalized cannabis, businesses would be much more willing to set up and sell a wide selection of cannabis (and possibly edibles) with established business hours.

For me, full legalization is the way to go!!! Yeah, there might be some B.S. tax structure involved and regulations, but it's more than worth it to be able to just run down to the "pot shop" and get some weed, rather than make the phone calls and wait for "the dude" to be home (whenever he is), and just settle for whatever he has on hand. Not to mention prices in a fully legalized environment are likely to be better.

What are your thoughts?
Logged

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: decrim vs legalization
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2011, 03:11:15 AM »

The government should take away all the prohibition laws, then apologise for not learning the first time.

One two three

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3650
    • View Profile
Re: decrim vs legalization
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2011, 03:38:36 AM »

If growing and selling were decrimed/legalized with no fine or jail time involved than you wouldn't have to worry about shady dealers/growers.
Logged
Why New Hampshire?  Learn why 1000s of liberty activists are planning to move to NH.  See the debate in page after page of forum messages, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?124976-101-Reasons-to-move-to-New-Hampshire

pete1071

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: decrim vs legalization
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2011, 05:21:17 AM »

Things is, as long as government exists, a fully decrim environment where people can grow & sell without penalty will never exist.

With any existing government, weed needs to be "legalized" for businesses to be brave enough to openly sell & grow.

And sadly, I don't think government will ever go away. There will always be asshole wanting to impose their will upon everyone else, therefore there will always be government.

So I say, ok, fine give the assholes a cut and let people sell their weed. It's better then the way things are right now.

And this "medical" shit is just a sidetrack where people need to make up some kind of a "condition" so that they can get their weed.
Fuck the medical route, it just makes getting weed another pain in the ass. It doesn't improve conditions for stoners.
Logged

mauiguy

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: decrim vs legalization
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2011, 08:27:23 AM »

Dude, it's a weed. It'll grow anywhere and any moron can do it. You ain't gotta buy crap.
If it's legalized, they'll take your house for growing. If it's decrimmed, grow an effin jungle if you want.
 
Logged
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~Samuel Adams~
                 
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. -- Professor Bernardo de la Paz, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, by Robert Heinlien

Turd Ferguson

  • Opportunist Extraordinaire
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4085
    • View Profile
    • https://twitter.com/#!/realmikequick
Re: decrim vs legalization
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2011, 10:00:43 AM »

If I had my pilots license, I'd load up a C-130 cargo plane, busting at the seams with pot seeds and I'd spend 3 days a week flying over municipalities in a zig zag pattern unloading them at random across the land. Prolly get caught eventually, but if there were many people doing this it would be harder to stop. Now we just need someone like Warren Buffett to finance the whole operation. It would be AMAZING!!!

 Cops, judges, politicians, farmers, suburban homes, city parks..........It'd be EVERYWHERE. then what? They'd be forced to legalize it. Wouldn't they?
Logged
Some peoples idea of hell is having to mind their own business.

Andy

  • Verbose.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2722
  • Ask me later.
    • View Profile
    • My Blawg
Re: decrim vs legalization
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2011, 11:00:10 AM »

Define your terms people.

My understanding of decriminalized is that you get a small immediate fine for low level possession. Nothing else changes.

Legalized means you can possess & use without any penalty and there is some process by which you can legal sell/grow.

It's entirely possible these terms are used to describe different proposals in different places.

From everything I've ever heard proposed though, legalized is stronger than decriminalized.

mauiguy

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: decrim vs legalization
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2011, 12:14:11 PM »

Define your terms people.

My understanding of decriminalized is that you get a small immediate fine for low level possession. Nothing else changes.

Legalized means you can possess & use without any penalty and there is some process by which you can legal sell/grow.

It's entirely possible these terms are used to describe different proposals in different places.

From everything I've ever heard proposed though, legalized is stronger than decriminalized.

My perspective,

Legalized = permits, inspections, regulations, taxation

Decrim = think of it like growing basil in your garden. decriminalization means it's no longer a crime.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 12:16:16 PM by mauiguy »
Logged
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~Samuel Adams~
                 
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. -- Professor Bernardo de la Paz, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, by Robert Heinlien

blackie

  • Guest
Re: decrim vs legalization
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2011, 12:39:42 PM »

Legalized = permits, inspections, regulations, taxation

Decrim = think of it like growing basil in your garden. decriminalization means it's no longer a crime.
Decrim usually means going from a crime to a violation. So they issue you a ticket instead of arresting you. Like if you speed or jay walk.

While legalization could mean permits and taxation,  it doesn't have to.

The legalization bill (up to one pound and six plants)failed in Maine the other day. But MMJ got better.

http://bangordailynews.com/2011/05/10/health/lawmakers-ease-access-to-medical-pot-nix-legalization/

Lawmakers vote down marijuana legalization but ease access to medical pot
By Meg Haskell, BDN Staff
Posted May 10, 2011, at 7:01 p.m.

In a rare show of cooperation during a generally divisive legislative session, lawmakers on the Health and Human Services Committee on Tuesday unanimously endorsed a proposal to expand access to marijuana under the state’s medical marijuana program.

A second bill that seeks to legalize and tax marijuana in Maine was voted down in a divided decision by the Criminal Justice Committee, but the issue promises to resurface in the future.

The first measure, LD 1296, would make registration with the state voluntary for patients who wish to use marijuana under the supervision and support of their physician, a measure intended to protect the privacy of patients, according to bill sponsor Rep. Deborah Sanderson, R-Chelsea.

Some people will prefer to register in order to ensure they do not run afoul of law enforcement agencies, Sanderson said Tuesday, but people should not be forced to be listed in a state registry to seek lawful therapeutic medical treatment.

The bill includes a number of other provisions that clarify and change the operations of the state’s medical marijuana program, which was established more than a decade ago and overhauled through a citizen referendum in 2009.

Subsequent rulemaking resulted in a tightly regulated network of patients, doctors, growers and storefront dispensaries  that some critics say violates the expressed will of the voters for a more open system.

Sanderson’s bill had its public hearing on April 25 and had strong support from the Maine Civil Liberties Union, which argued for the increased access and less restrictive registration process the bill proposes.

The bill drew opposition from the Maine Medical Association for its proposed elimination of the list of specific conditions for which marijuana can be approved. The Maine Medical Association lifted its objections after the amended version approved on Tuesday restored a slightly expanded  list of conditions.

Other provisions in the original bill had raised the concerns of the Department of Health and Human Services, which regulates the program. But the amended version satisfied all stakeholders at the public hearing, resulting in the unanimous committee vote.  

Sanderson was quick to praise the revision process that enabled the bill’s endorsement.

“There was a lot of misinformation out there, but once we sat down together we were able to come very close to consensus,” she said.

Meanwhile, the Criminal Justice committee took testimony on a bill that would legalize the use, purchase and possession of up to one pound of marijuana for recreational or medicinal use. The bill, LD 1453, would impose a tax of 7 percent on the sale of marijuana with revenues directed to programs that support small farmers, law enforcement agencies, residential weatherization programs and higher education.

Sponsored by Rep. Diane Russell, D-Portland, the bill would allow an individual to cultivate and store marijuana for personal use and license up to 300 commercial growers. It would allow state-licensed dispensaries to sell to customers age 21 and over.    

In presenting her legislation to the Criminal Justice Committee, Russell compared the federal prohibition against marijuana to the failed constitutional prohibition against alcohol in effect from 1920 to 1933, which ushered in illegal, Mafia-controlled trafficking.  

“We have absolutely no control over the marijuana market,” she said. “And because we have no control, the vast majority of the drug trade is in the hands of criminals.”  Allowing marijuana to be regulated, taxed and sold responsibly to law-abiding adults would “siphon the life out of the drug trade,” she said.

Russell brought in Lt. Jack Cole, former narcotics officer with the New Jersey State Police and founder of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition to testify in support of her bill. Cole called the nation’s war on drugs “a self-perpetuating and constantly expanding policy disaster.”

He decried the amount of time and money spent in prosecuting drug violations. While agencies are busy trying to round up marijuana offenders, he said, more serious crimes go unsolved and unprosecuted.

“There’s more important things for us to work on than a bunch of people smoking pot, guys,” Cole told committee members.

The bill was opposed by the Maine Department of Public Safety and the Office of Substance Abuse.

Lawmakers discussed a recent round of letters to states from U.S. Attorneys emphasizing the federal prohibition against marijuana, including state-sanctioned medical marijuana programs that are creating problems for law enforcement agencies. Maine, which has a tightly regulated program, has not received such a letter.

Committee member Sanderson said Maine is unlikely to draw federal scrutiny for its medical marijuana program, but that an effort to legalize marijuana altogether could focus unwanted attention on the program.

“I am not in favor of legalization at all, but even if I were I would not vote for this bill” for fear of jeopardizing the medical program, she said.  

Other committee members ranged broadly in their views of the issue. Retired state trooper Rep. David Burns, R-Whiting, said he opposed any effort to ease state or federal drug laws. He said marijuana serves as a gateway drug to more serious substances and predicted that legalizing marijuana in Maine would attract drug traffickers and commercial growers to the state.

“I can see them coming here in droves if we pass this law,” he said.

Rep. Ann Haskell, D-Portland, recounted her adult daughter’s traumatic experience with uterine cancer. A “tortuous” treatment with chemotherapy drugs left her daughter too nauseated to eat or drink anything, she said, and it was only the then-clandestine availability of marijuana that eased her sickness.

Haskell acknowledged that Russell’s bill, as written, is unlikely to find legislative support. But she and others on the committee urged the possibility of a citizen’s referendum on the issue.

“I think we need to hear from the people where we need to go with drug policy in this country, and I am willing for it to start here,” she said.

After the 8-3 committee vote against her proposal, Russell thanked her fellow lawmakers for reviewing it with professionalism and open minds.

“When you bring forward a bill like this, some people assume you’re doing it because you want to go out and smoke a lot of pot,” she said. “That’s obviously not the case. This is not a fringe issue; it’s a very mainstream issue.”




http://www.westport-news.com/news/article/Maine-reps-reject-marijuana-bill-1425003.php

Maine reps reject marijuana bill
Published 10:05 a.m., Wednesday, June 15, 2011

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — Maine representatives have rejected a bill to give residents a vote on whether to legalize the personal consumption and cultivation of marijuana.

The bill, which failed to earn the endorsement of a legislative committee, was voted down 107-39 Tuesday in the House of Representatives.

As originally written, the bill would have allowed Mainers 21 and older to possess up to one pound of marijuana. Consumer purchases would have been taxed at 7 percent.

According to the Bangor Daily News, the bill was changed in committee to propose that voters decide through a statewide referendum whether to legalize pot.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where it is likely to be rejected.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 12:48:23 PM by blackie »
Logged

mauiguy

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: decrim vs legalization
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2011, 02:58:14 PM »

The only reason decrim is commonly considered the lessening of the screwing over you'll get by the tax guzzling mouth breathers is because there's still a bunch of busybody arsewipes that refuse to get their disgusting beaks out of other peoples business.

Decriminalization to me means taking something that was formerly a crime and making it not one.

I ain't playing their little word games.

To all who would presume to control me: Hey you jackholes, mind your own fucking business!! Quit hurting people who have not harmed anyone else!!!

there....
Fucking jackholes...
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 03:04:53 PM by mauiguy »
Logged
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~Samuel Adams~
                 
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. -- Professor Bernardo de la Paz, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, by Robert Heinlien

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: decrim vs legalization
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2011, 03:09:35 PM »

Heh. I was imagining a drunken Steve Dallas when I read that last post.

mauiguy

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: decrim vs legalization
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2011, 05:30:30 AM »

He has more hair than me.
Logged
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~Samuel Adams~
                 
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. -- Professor Bernardo de la Paz, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, by Robert Heinlien

pete1071

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: decrim vs legalization
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2011, 06:13:07 AM »

Yeah, as a plant, weed grows really easy.
But if someone wants to grow GOOD weed, they are going to need some skill, and also investment in a proper growing setup.

Anyhow the current status on 'decrim' is only the decrim of possession. The decrim of growing and selling isn't going to happen.

The only hope with the existing government structure is some kind of legalization. The tax hungry politicians are NOT going to ever just say "ok grow & sell weed, we don't want a cut"... that's just a pipe dream.

Being realistic is allowing the dickhead tax hungry politicians have their cut and let people open up legit grow operations & pot shops. So that the cannabis trade can get out of the hands of the douchebags and into the hands of decent business people.

Only people who have reliable dealers or good situations for growing want decrim.
And to repeat myself, decriminalization of the growing and selling of pot just isn't going to happen... ever.
Whoever believes in that is living in a fantasy land.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  decrim vs legalization

// ]]>

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 31 queries.