h/t OddJob
Unfortunately, this has nothing much to do with how Califrutopia is governed (other than legalizing weed to begin with), and rather a lot more to do with how markets work under capitalism.
O, if only someone, somewhere, had told you (and told you, and told you, and told you, and,,,) that legalizing weed would never work, because the enemy gets a vote, and that cartels would literally give the sh*t away for free to maintain market share, until they had driven brick-and-mortar "legal" weed shops out of business, due to zoning regs, property taxes, sales taxes, weed taxes, robberies, and the myriad problems of compliance with Leviathan's hoops, through which any such "legitimate" business must jump. Oh, wait, that was me.
Almost like capitalism works exactly as designed.
Meanwhile, we've gone from one overdose every month or two, when I started my profession 2+ decades ago, to 8-10 per shift, two shifts/day, 24/7/365, times every ED in an area the size of Wyoming, amidst a population bigger than that of every state west of the Rockies not including Califrutopia itself, i.e. 10-12% of the entire country. Most (i.e. greater than 90%) of that increase has been the time interval from full marijuana legalization to now. But I'm sure that's just another wild coincidence.
The experiment has failed (exactly as predicted); this was never going to work, and never will, and it hasn't been anything close to any sort of tax boon, nor a victimless crime. It was, is, and ever shall be the only organizing principle of Libertarianism: a political excuse to get drugs.
It has now, oh so predictably, blown up in everyone's faces, but the last thing they'd ever do is admit they were wrong, any more than Hanoi Jane Fonda will ever admit she may have been off somewhat on the joys of communism in a re-united Vietnam.
The weedheads who championed this not only achieved epic failure, they've now succeeded in getting government's hands even deeper into the pockets of every taxpayer in this state (that would be anyone who buys anything, ever) than they already were before, if the bong-suckers had just had a nice, steaming hot cup of STFU, and minded their own business.
Well-played, drug legalization and dope-smoking assholes. You're not only massively wrong, as anyone with grade-school logic knew when this was first proposed, you're also stealing from me, you've increased the scope of the very government you alleged to oppose, and you're both feeding it like a pet hyena, and compelling others to do likewise, at gunpoint.
This is basically the moral and ethical equivalent of vegans running a slaughterhouse and animal experimentation lab. And selling bootleg albums of the animals' death screams.
Perhaps do civilization a favor, and just kill yourselves now. Take one for the team.
25 comments:
In my understanding it was the people via the initiative process that chose to make weed legal, not the State. I'm fine with that even if it gives substandard results simply because a free people should be able to make bad choices. And I don't have to tell you that modern weed is a very bad choice.
That said the only solution that will have an effect is border control 40 years ago and I mean "You can't even get into Mexico and everything is searched damn the cost."
If we did it now, its far too late as the cartels are already here and well embedded. We aren't ruthless enough for butchers bill required to clean them out , ten million dead or so is more than we can stomach.
"In my understanding it was the people via the initiative process that chose to make weed legal, not the State."
Correct, but...
It required state government, and in particular the current fall-back (Sen. Kneepads) in case Gropey Dopey strokes out, who was the state's AG, finding that such a proposed initiative passes constitutional muster. Where, exactly, does a state populace have the right to decide which federal laws it will abide by, and which ones it will throw out? Can an initiative re-institute slavery? Abrogate the right to trial by jury? De-criminalize murder? What about legalizing killing Whites? Blacks? Mexicans? Jews? Gays? Redheads? Left-handers? Can a state therefore decide the Second Amendment doesn't apply to anyone, statewide, if they can get enough votes for that?
Mind the slippery slope.
Just spitballing, but with a couple of centuries of settled state and federal law, I'm pretty sure no initiative gets to decriminalize something that's a federal felony simply because it's inconvenient for them, even if 100% of any given state thinks otherwise (and arresting the governor, AG, and the heads of the legislature the minute they tried it should have been the go-to option at that point), but if you can weave such a rug, show us how it's done, within a legal framework other than "all law is optional".
"a free people should be able to make bad choices"
So if truck drivers continually drove semis into crowds, you're down with that...?
Just curious how far that policy extends.
And what about the people dealing with the consequences, none of whom are the "free people making bad choices"?
At what point, in your universe, does personal responsibility and eating the consequences for the responsible parties kick in?
Asking for 40M friends and neighbors.
If you want to do dope in your own home, and it affects no one else, IDGAF.
(Good luck squaring that circle, since you're complicit in the production, importation, sales, and conspiracy that allowed you to get the drug(s) in the first place, unless you're a one-person weed - and only weed - growing operation in perpetuity).
The minute it becomes anyone else's problem - spouse, kids, neighbors, or The State - I think your shit should get hammered flat. Probably no second chances, and definitely no third ones.
If a first offense for ending up stoned in the ED or jail, or otherwise ending up on society's radar, was six months at hard labor on a chain gang, I'm fine with that.
The second such offense should be handled by euthanasia.
(And yes, same-same for alcoholism.)
0 recidivism.
And I'd outlaw Narcan.
Then you're free to do whatever you want, and free to own the consequences for doing it too.
Right now, it's consequence-free for the perpetrator, and loaded with consequences for everyone else.
That's not freedom, it's anarchy.
I have some wee idea that the necessary amount of government ought to be nipping that state of affairs in the bud, not fertilizing it and watering it twice a day.
Aesop, if you ever get tired of californication (I escaped in 1973) come on up here and pay us a visit.
Right on. Weed has been a disaster in Colorado as well. For anyone who claims it's safer than alcohol, my wife (a PharmD) can show several clinical studies that prove otherwise. Of course, this information is totally ignored by the mass media.
I for one would be interested in seeing those clinical studies.
My mom (who does not partake of pot herself) often remarks to me that marijuana is, after all, a part of nature. My response (which she doesn't care for) is, "so's arsenic."
The Federal government has no legitimate business telling California it can't grow weed within its own borders. All that stuff dating from Roosevelt was a gross violation of State Sovereignty. The Courts were right to say so same as with guns in some States.
Ship it? Yes they can ban it even if it stupid like shipping from one legal state to another.
Also note that 36 states allow medical marijuana, 18 recreational use. Even Judge Thomas is starting to see no need for Federal Laws since there is no concrete approach to the issue.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/clarence-thomas-says-federal-laws-against-marijuana-may-no-longer-n1272524
Weed is a disaster but the difference between poisoning yourself and directly harming others by actions is quite vast.
As far as one man, back before GMO weed was a thing. Growing your own for personal use was actually common. So there is that.
OTOH that weed at its strongest was 1/3 average THC of modern weed and was often maybe 5-10% as strong and with no lethal ingestion level unlike booze.
I don't think modern weed can kill you but it can mess you up bad.
However that war is lost and we don't have the ability to fight it for a ton of reasons. As stupid as the subsidies are, we are stuck with them or better just requiring a liquor license and some zoning and being done with it.
If we did this and worked on human trafficking and illegal grows we might be able to assert some control but an actual war, invade Mexico kill millions and millions in what will end up a massive race war is the only way to stop it.
We can't even do roads, water or electricity so its right out.
Speaking of doing us all a favor and killing themselves for the team, Dan Bongino has launched his new "alternative" payment processor site, alignpay.com
Do yourself a favor and do a WHOIS look up on that domain name.
Yes, you read that right. GODADDY.
That is a basic level tech error of gigantic proportions. This is the 2nd time Mr. Bongino has backed a site with this level of error built in (Parler used Amazon Web Services, which is hostile to nominally right wing tech sites, and like clockwork got deplatformed).
For those with short memories, GODADDDY is the service that kicked GAB.AI off of the internet way back when.
That Bongino would use them, out of all the domain registrars out there to register his site, is stupidity on a level that requires 24/7 wear of a football helmet.
@5stone,
That's pure gainsaying, not rational argument.
Law is not fungible for anarchy.
Undertake to show the class wherein federal law is listed as a buffet, from whence states may pick and choose what they like or no, and I will grant the point. Be aware that makes the 2A and the whole Bill of Rights equally replaceable or removable, at the popular whim.
Under your theory, we become a nation of men, not one of law, because nothing is as fickle as the mob, which is the entirety of why we are not and never were intended by the Founders to be any sort of democracy.
Your entire legal position is based on quicksand.
Just because one doesn't like federal government doesn't therefore make it moot, any more than not liking strawberry ice cream therefore makes it evil.
And a war isn't lost until one surrenders.
If the government isn't up to performing its basic task that government is the problem, not the laws they're failing to uphold. The end of that train line is failed states, like Mexico, and the narco-states in S. America. If anyone's looking for a better candidate at which to start slinging nukes, they should look no further. For that matter, simply line the Army up track to track, pointed south, and drive all you find southwards until they're forced to leap the Panama Canal. I'm fine with that, and so is most of the country, even now. Once we import a critical mass of narco-terrorists and their cousins, not so much. This last just ensures that when that war is fought, it'll be starting on our home turf. It will end in a pile of skulls on Tierra del Fuego, and this generation's great-grandchildren will tell their children those tales to frighten the youngsters into obedience.
And FTR, we haven't wiped murder out in 6000 years of recorded human history, yet the laws against it remain, and anyone suggesting it's futile and "too hard" to enforce ought to, as suggested, go and kill himself, for the greater civic good. They are clearly excess to civilization's needs.
Suggesting surrender is the advice of a man who thinks he can feed everyone else to the alligators first, and persuade them to eat him last, then bargain for how far up his ass they bite.
Au contraire, it's time to drain that swamp, and kill everything that lives in it, down to the last living cell, then let Nature reclaim it and try again.
Folks are OD-ing on weed?
I must be stuck in the '80s, because I didn't think that was possible.
The High Times botanists must have cultivated some really strong $hit.....
I see inconsistency in Aesop's arguments here in the comments. When the federal government over-reaches and enacts laws that violate the original intent of the Constitution, I think it is very much the right of the states to reject it under the Tenth Amendment. The trouble is we have had leftist Supreme Courts who have approved the metamorphosis of the federal government far beyond its original function, into a super-ruler that can meddle in anything, public or private. Who will resist this perversion if not the people, through their state governments?
The anti-drug laws should never have been enacted. The War on Drugs was not only futile, but wrong-headed. With a strong border policy and lack of anti-drug laws, the cartels would never have gotten started. Anti-gun laws are now being resisted by the states, as is the Democrats' encouragement of illegal immigration. I think this is a good thing. So if the people of California voted, either directly or through their Democrat "leaders", to legalize drugs, I say they made their bed and they can lie in it.
The inconsistency is in your own view.
1) Draw a line from 1783 to now that shows drug laws were not part of original intent.
2) The anti-drug laws were enacted before Left and Right were even much of a thing. They were a response to the lack of same, exactly as intended should happen as necessity arose.
3) When every state after the original 13 were added to the union, they all agreed to abide by federal law. there's no carve-out for "except laws we disagree with". If you think there is, show all work.
4) We've never had a War On Drugs. We've had a Slap Fight On Some Drugs, With Collateral Damage. If we'd ever had a war, the Arc Light strikes south of the border would have killed millions. That never happened.
5) Arresting people is not a war. If we were at war, we'd be shooting down airplanes, sinking ships, and machinegunning m*****f*****s crossing the border with anything but a water bottle, and executing anyone found with drugs on the spot. That's how actual wars work. No one issues handcuffs to soldiers, ever.
6) Feeling superior because the plague is landing in California is short-sighted idiocy. Take a look outside the Home Depots near where you live. How many illegal Mexicans are there every morning? Does your state even border Mexico? So the problem isn't what people voted for, it's people anywhere thinking they can vote any damned thing they want into being, contrary to all law and history, since ever, and then imagining that the plague resulting will magically confine itself because of dotted lines on a map.
@T,
Only about 25% of the ODs are weed. (That's 25% that never happened even once prior to about 10 years ago, btw.) The rest are everything else brought in, once the floodgates were opened.
So, when Joe and the Cameltoe ho declare my AR 15 illegal,I don't have the right to disagree and resist? I'm not a fan of leagelized pot, but limits on federal power are absolute. Just because .gov passes a law does not mean it passes Constitutional limits. With freedom comes choice, responsibility and concicicce. So yes there several reasons to ignore Federal law inacted by the latest administration.
IdahoHunter
I disagree. Your "rebuttal" is wrongly aimed. Drug laws at the Federal level are not part of the original purpose of the federal government, as they deal with individual behavior. States are free to enact their own laws on matters where the federal government has no business. My objection is to the federalization of everything.
States refusing to enforce immigration laws are not acting within their Tenth Amendment powers, as protecting the international border is a federal power. But it's interesting to note that we are now in a reverse situation, where the feds are deliberately NOT enforcing their own laws, and the states are starting to build their own walls and protect their own borders. What can one do when the federal government fails to do its duty?
My view of regarding drug legality is simple: Leave people free to use them or not, and let Darwin's Law of Natural Selection make it a self-solving problem. A true Libertarian ethic without government bailouts for irresponsible behavior is conservative, because if you try to live a libertine lifestyle, you will not live long.
The "War on Drugs" is not of my coinage, so don't criticize me for it.
@idahohunter,
1) Some limits on federal power are absolute. They may not, for example, quarter soldiers in your house in peace time. OTOH, try owning and selling slaves, and get back to me on how that works out for you. Then tell me who has absolute power.
2) And you're missing the point.
But clear it up for me: point to the section in the Constitution which declares pot possession a constitutional right. I'll wait.
(Helpful hint: it's right next to the one which declares abortions and gay marriages are protected rights. Hope that helps.)
3) By contrast, I can point to the Second Amendment, and solve your problems with FedGov declaring your AR-15 (or most any other firearm, and many other things too) verboten in about 0.2 seconds.
4) See if you can suss out where you went over the cliff, and then backtrack to that point.
5) You may disagree with FedGov all you want. You can even resist. You can also be wrong, both times. One is a party foul. the other can have more severe consequences. Given that reality since Ever, one had best understand how to get from Point A to Point B correctly, without hopping up and down on landmines, oughtn't one?
I disagree.
Absent rationale, that goes by the helpful term "gainsaying".
Your "rebuttal" is wrongly aimed.
Pretty sure I aimed it straight at you, since you posted your comments.
Drug laws at the Federal level are not part of the original purpose of the federal government, as they deal with individual behavior.
Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, for just a few off-the-cuff examples of original federal law, deal with behavior by...whom? Individuals? Anyone? Beuller? Ferris Beuller...?
While you're up, where does "freedom to possess any drug or substance known to mankind" derive from?
Bonus question: What does the phrase "promote the general welfare" in the constitution's opening paragraph mean? Was it just rhetorical flourish, with no actual legal intent or meaning, and thus wholly irrelevant to all law since the founding of the republic? Show all work.
States are free to enact their own laws on matters where the federal government has no business.
Deliniate that territory, and once again, show all work. Then make reference to the Food and Drug Acts, going back to the late 1800s, back when Senators were directly elected by the state governments in all cases, and not by the mob. Which states objected to those federal laws, and got those laws thrown out on Constitutional grounds?
My objection is to the federalization of everything.
"Everything" is neither here nor there. The topic under discussion is drugs, neither more nor less. Prove that point, or concede it, as you may.
States refusing to enforce immigration laws are not acting within their Tenth Amendment powers, as protecting the international border is a federal power. But it's interesting to note that we are now in a reverse situation, where the feds are deliberately NOT enforcing their own laws, and the states are starting to build their own walls and protect their own borders. What can one do when the federal government fails to do its duty?
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and appoint new Guards for their future security."
My view of regarding drug legality is simple: Leave people free to use them or not, and let Darwin's Law of Natural Selection make it a self-solving problem.
That's a "Let them eat cake!" answer, because the consequences are borne, inordinately, by people who neither want the consequences which befall them, nor asked for them, nor even used the drugs in question. So what's your Cunning Plan then??? While you're dithering, my ER is full of the consequences of the "Let them eat cake!" plan, daily.
A true Libertarian ethic without government bailouts for irresponsible behavior is conservative, because if you try to live a libertine lifestyle, you will not live long.
Why don't you agree to give me a penny for every Libertarian yammering to legalize drugs, and I'll give you a dollar for every one of them yammering to cut drug users off without any government bailouts or social supports, on the spot, and my winnings from the bargain will buy my new Ferrari 812 GTS, and pay for my gas for a year. Do we have a deal?The only thing Lie-bertarins have ever cared a whit about, and thrown all their nominal weight behind, is getting drugs, consequence-free to themselves, and f**k everyone else.that's not libertarian, it's simply libertine. QED
The "War on Drugs" is not of my coinage, so don't criticize me for it.
You pulled "War On Drugs" out of your...pocket. If you didn't want to own it, don't use it. Until then, your circus, your monkeys.
It's not 1970's weed, which was really low (1-2%) in THC (active component) content. Now the THC is in (as I read once) the 20% plus and nearly 30% range.
Inhalers can be 99% THC.
Studies have shown that there is a correlation between the local weed THC content and the number of honest-to-God schitzos that show up. It's not natural.
Aesop. Most Anti Drug Laws date originally from around 1909 with a pure food and drug act and there was a very distinct left and Right at that time.
There was not a welfare state however.
As to owning slaves. As you know formal slavery is illegal though Constitutional as punishment for a crime. Selling slaves was stopped in the 1950's or so , yes 1950's though they were "convicts" sold to private firms. Come Si Com Sa
Still how do you think the cartels cut costs so low? Trafficked people used as slaves. Even beyond that its not that rare and they can be bought and sold on the black market.
The difference between slavery and drugs is vast. At the most basic there is no clear victim if drugs are used . More technically 2/3rds of states have legal legal medical weed and just about 1/3 with a huge percentage of the population, legal recreational.
That looks like lost to me.
You debate like a Democrat.
And you cry like a girl, and run like a scalded cat.
5stone,
In 1909,there was no welfare state, and senators were directly elected by state legislatures, as originally intended.
And nobody went pissing and moaning about the horrible encroachment on the Constitution.
So the argument about whether the states can serve federal law up like a buffet is moot.
The argument that drug use is a victimless crime was sophomoric 50 years ago.
But don't believe me; come pull a shift in the ER, and believe your own lying eyes.
I have no argument with medical marijuana, provided you dispense it via a prescription, and specify the strength of the product, and can certify a medical necessity for it.
"Lack of weed" is not a medical condition.
"Recreational" marijuana, which was always the camel behind the nose of medical marijuana, has been an unmitigated disaster in every place that's trying it.
Pretty much just like slavery was.
This is just another peculiar institution that is past time to end.
The U.S. is a signatory to the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs treaty. The federal government is required by the Constitution to pass legislation to enforce any treaty it is legally bound to. And yes, MaryJ is listed on the treaty as a Schedule V narcotic (Schedule I). Research use only.
“A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished; especially, so far as its operation is infra-territorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument. In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract—when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the court." - Chief Justice Marshall, 1829
For the federal government to roll back laws concerning narcotics enforcement, it would first have to somehow exit the treaty.
Before anyone decides that he is a very clever boy, no, the fedgov cannot legally enter into a treaty that contradicts existing law, so no, guns can't be banned by signing a treaty to that effect. Otherwise, they would've already done it.
There is no right of , "My Body, My Choice".
As an aside, every time I see a Lipstick Libertarian argument, all I hear in my head is, "Hey, man! Stop harshing my buzz! Imma get high as balls!"
While I think the Federal Government is involved in a great many things it should not be, drugs enforcement is not one of them. I have lived through this in my own family, and to Aesop's point, it is not a victimless crime. We all pay. And even if things work out for the best, as it did in our case, it is still a scar and pall that hangs over everything for the rest of one's life.
Cartels exceed even governments in their willingness to do whatever they need to in order to maintain their control and power.
@Some guy.
First of all, screw the UN with a rusty chainsaw. This is a "treaty" from 1961 that is fairly well ignored by many countries, including UK, Germany, Netherlands, and several US states.
You are completely wrong about there being "My Body, My Choice". Of course there is. We fought a revolution over the concept of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (also Taxation Without Representation).
Aesop, as sharp as he is, is completely wrong about there being no legitimate medical use for cannabis. IMHO, he is also a hypocrite blogging about cannabis, which has no OD potential on its own, while ignoring alcohol and tobacco, which kill tens to hundreds of thousands annually.
@Unknown
Signed in 1972, re-ratified multiple times.
Keep this in mind; the United States monkey-hammered a number of other nations into signing onto this TREATY. Kinda hard to convince others to let us duck out of shit we bullied them into.
Please point out the particulars in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that prevent the State from regulating certain behaviors. Drunk and disorderly exists for a reason; I've seen people, SWIM, ransack shit high as balls on marijuana, etc. Your ability to swing your fist stops at my nose.
I didn't see where Aesop said there is NO legitimate use for weed. I didn't see the High Times argument for Universal Weed at all in anything he wrote in this post.
Alcohol and tobacco are demons that bolted the stable and ran hog-wild long ago. Good luck putting those leviathans back into their stables.
Drug Use is not a victimless crime. Society pays for it, one way or the other. You can see society paying for it now in the treatment and support of addicts on the tax payer dime. And that does not cover any sort of crime performed to support the habits (it happens) or the destruction of personal lives of friends and family, which is real.
My sister-in-law is a recovering addict and will be for the rest of her life. She has done amazing things with her life, considering where she was at one point. But no-one can pretend that the damage she put on her body and the suffering to those around her were anything other than a choice.
As to cannabis - For many years, the complaint was that clinical trials could not be conducted due to the illegal nature of it. Now, it is legal - so if there was a true desire to demonstrate the effectiveness and superiority of it, I would expect those trials would be starting. I suspect (and it is only a hunch) they never will, because there would be no value to anyone to do so - at this point, the only things that we could find out would be detrimental to its market and use.
Anyone who thought the cartels were going to happily and peaceably surrender a profit stream were, simply put, crazy.
Post a Comment