House will vote on cannabis legalization bill in December

so you think the people are getting too much for Repubs to even vote on is?

 

It told you exactly what I think.

 

And you'd be wrong. Check my previous posts #110, 226 and 238. You should also look at post #264. I may be for something but I will not put on rose colored glasses preventing me from seeing the obstacles in the way of getting marijuana decriminalized. You on the other hand clearly want this passed regardless of which administration does it even though you clearly hate Trump. Your desperation for getting a bill past is very obvious.

 

Trump or Biden, doesn't matter to me who signs it

 

The Congress should be working on Covid relief lacked not on legalizing grass a gateway drug.

 

1) The claim that congress should be doing Covid and nothing else - is silly - and unsupported.
2) The claim that pot is a "Gateway Drug" is demonstrably false .

Try the "Get an Argument" section of your local bookstore perhaps ?!

 

I did not say that Congress should be doing nothing but Covid.
Try to stick with the facts when attempting to respond to members comments.

 

Absolutely that was what you implied .. now backtracking on your comment - which is good .. as it was silly

 

No that is your opinion of what I stated. Your opinion is not reality.

 

What you stated was that congress should not be working on Pot Legislation while they have Covid to work on.

What other legislation should Congress not be working on. Explain your claim - and good luck

 

I'm actually optimistic but then again I support the concept so...

I mentioned this before but for example Marco Rubio may vote against this but he's up for election in 2022 it doesn't necessarily mean I would support his Democratic opponent but I would definitely support his primary gop opponent if they were in favor.

I'm not a single issue voter so other factors apply, but it could certainly sway my vote if all other things were equal.

 

Perhaps this is why democrats want socialized medicine for all, so pot smoking addicts will get the tax payers to save them from the multitude of disease they will self inflict on themselves from smoking pot. Drug addled citizens too whacked out to care that their liberty has been stolen. But the state there to take care of you as you whither...

 

First thing to mention is Pot is not addictive - say like Alcohol , Cigarettes, Heroin.
Second thing is that pot does not "whack someone out" - so you appear to have no idea what you are talking about.

Third and perhaps most important - is that I have smoked pot and am way smarter - and care way more about liberty than you.

 

I guess this isn't what I suspected would be your response. Since I didn't make this a personal observation, the idea that you did is surprising. I'd say that if pot isn't addictive, it sure is the gateway through which much addiction follows. And while the libertarians amongst us understand that government regulation of what some folks find to be recreational, represents what we most abhor about government, the idea that government would uniquely legalize behavior that ultimately frees folks from their oversight would be a good thing, there are inherent societal costs to the behavior. And we do know what those are. But I fear that the original post of yours doesn't take into account the idea that the advocates in the congress who you'd support are, more likely, not looking at the picture the way you are, and that the purpose of the legislation is, for them, a gateway to other social requirements that you'd also likely not agree with, ie socialized medical control.

I would point out that having seen the effects of PCP laden pot, the "whacked out" is very much a concern to me. Everyone wants to rejoice in the "peace" of pot. And for me, I really am not against it. Do what you want to yourself, and be responsible enough not to burden others with your choice. But I doubt that democrats are in it for the public. I suspect this, for them, is, as noted earlier, a gateway through which future tyranny in our nation happens. I point it out since it doesn't appear to have entered into your particular posting so far. Which leads me to have concern that in your advocacy, underlying conditions aren't being addressed, and frankly, it undercuts your credible advocacy when not included.

 

If you want to make an argument over a "gateway" drug you'd better address alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine first. Also, no one is "lacing" MJ with anything, that just drives up your costs and ruins your client base. That's like saying you're selling a car to people but there's a button on the dash somewhere that dumps nitrous into the system for no discernable reason, and trying to sell said car at normal market value.

 

McConnel has passed reliefs bills and ready and willing to sign a bill that helps PEOPLE, what he is opposed to is this HUGE blank check Pelosi wants to pass, with a primary aim at bailing out blue state pension funds, when LOTS of the previous money is sitting unspent.

 

Don't be so sure

Majority Of Republicans Support Marijuana Legalization Bill That Democrats In Congress Delayed Vote On
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/maj...l-that-democrats-in-congress-delayed-vote-on/

 

McConnell would not even consider Trump's offer of $1.8T.

 

I said it would not pass the Senate. Your article just talks about the House.

 

You are correct - essential liberty issues such as this one are personal to me and this was perhaps some of the impetus for my reaction (which is a standard response that I will do to people in person btw they will be spouting about how pot makes folks dumb - and that will shut them up quickly - Harsh yes - don't do this too often and normally drinks have been involved - someone spouting off) - but mainly - my terse response is because your previous post lacked respect for essential liberty when normally you are on the side of liberty.

Your previous post was a prime example of fallacious utilitarianism. "Harm Reduction" as justification for law "What will increase happiness for the collective - with no regard for essential liberty"

Utilitarianist justification for law - of its own volition- is an anathema to the safeguards the founders put in place to protect essential liberty.
Your arguments - were not even valid Utilitarian arguments.

PCP ? what on earth are you talking about. Should we ban booze because someone put the rape drug in it ? - and how often does this happen .. and so on. So on the based of one anecdote - some nut lacing bad pot with PCP hoping to increase the value 30 years ago - you want to control the behavior of 350 million people.

What underlying conditions am I not addressing ? - I never said that Pot was a good thing .. just corrected some false information being peddled - info which has been used for years to perpetuate the drug war - which has mostly been a war on pot.

I don't smoke the stuff these days - sans perhaps on a very rare occasion and I am reminded why I don't smoke it. That said - when I was younger - I had a whole lot of experience with it - having come of age in the period that followed the Hippy days of the 60's. The high school I attended - near 500 in my graduating class - can count the number of people on one hand who did not smoke the stuff - it is just what you did growing up . Know many folks who completed Chem-degree smoking the stuff on a near daily basis - a degree which I hold.

The gateway claim is abject nonsense on steroids. The reality is that the vast majority of those who use pot - do not go on to Heroin and PCP - and those that got pot laced with that sht were none to happy about it.. which is the opposite of the gateway effect .. and if this fellow was peddling such stuff in an area that was gang territory - that persons life would be in danger - as this is a very stupid thing to do - only bringing super negative attention to the livelihood of many.

Fallacious Utilitarian dribble - better not go to a party at all as that is the gateway to all forms of debauchery is it not ?

Societal Costs - What is the societal cost of turning 100 million people in this nation into criminals - how is this not a policing and justice system nightmare. .. How has this not been a policing and justice system nightmare ?

How about - with 1 stroke of the pen - we turn 100 million criminals into law abiding citizens.

 

SO, you didn't actually read my post. I tried. I explained that what is being proposed hasn't a thing to do with decriminalizing pot, but more a process for further justification of socialized medial controls. I did, actually, agree with the opinion of individual responsible consumption, did I now? I just disagreed with faithfully finding benefit in a process that likely will more undermine liberty than not. I pointed out that the usurpation of individual liberty by having to take liberty vis a vis health decisions is also, to me, more of an issue which frankly your advocacy just didn't address. So, you suggest a thing I didn't advocate here. Perhaps take a look at you for the answer.

 

I did read your post - and agree with much of it - most of my post responded to your first post.

Socialized medicine is a different issue - and while that may be the motive ( we could get into this but it is a bit of a rabbit hole) - if it results in getting rid of this horrible war on pot - and all the horrible things it has caused - it is a step in the right direction.

We can talk Socialized medicine if you like - but that is not the topic and Pot has little to do the overall Blue healthcare plan.

Socialized medicine does not take away health care decisions in first world nations.. so don't blame SM for Blue's actions. The vast majority of people in SM systems have way more liberty w/r to healthcare decisions than the inefficient and corrupt system of healthcare extortion we have in this nation.

Obamacare was lipstick on a pig - doing nothing to address the systemic issues which resulted in a 3.5 Trillion dollar total HC spend in 2017.
God knows what it is after 4 years of Trump - certainly not lower.

Total Fed revenue for 2017 was 3.6 Trillion to put things in perspective. This spend is double what other first world nations spend - most having equivalent or better care for that dollar.

Do you think we can continue spending like this for much longer - especially given that the baby boomers are now going into their high HC cost years. Our system is screwed - either way - and there is no saving it.

Across the Pond - folks are providing the same service - for half the money - and we will be going that direction be it Red or Blue in charge.
and the writing is on the wall - https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

 

Republicans in general. Conservatives have supported decriminalization even legalization going back to William F Buckley writing in National Review.

The Conservative Case for Legalizing Marijuana

..
as TIME reported that December [1972]:

…American conservatives may have arched their eyebrows well above the hairline when they glimpsed the latest issue of William F. Buckley Jr.’s staunchly nonpermissive National Review. There on the cover was the headline: THE TIME HAS COME: ABOLISH THE POT LAWS. Inside, Richard C. Cowan, a charter member of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom, sets forth his arguments that the criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use should be stricken from the books. Cowan contends that pot is comparatively harmless, demonstrably ubiquitous and that the laws against it only alienate the young and breed disrespect for American justice.
https://time.com/3724131/conservatives-marijuana-buckley/

The Senate is going to be a slim majority just a few Republicans let alone 30% - 40% support it and it's a done deal. Take it back to the State, the People of those States let them decide. Very conservative position.

 

He went from $1T to $1.6T and Pelosi only went up in her demands, she DID NOT WANT A BILL. She did not want to give Republicans and Trump something to run on. McConnell is quite right we need to find out how much of the previous money is still out there, how much is actually needed and target that to people and businesses and not a total mish-mash of favorite causes and a bailout of blue state pension funds on the back of red states.

Target the spending, pass some now we can always pass more later but we can't back what does get passed once it's out there.