So the lost of constitutional rights and freedoms would be OK, we just won't give them money to fix pot holes?

 

The Federal highway Fund is a large chunk of change. I could be wrong, but I think that is what the federal government used as a threat to states that had their drinking age set at 18 back in the day. But I see your point.

Brownies are the snack of choice I do believe...

 

Are you confirming or just guessing ?

In my line of work, I have had people abusing alcohol: cuss me, hit me, swing at me, spit on me, bite me and kick me and I have people overdose on every drug known to man (except Marijuana).

 

I have never had anyone on Marijuana do any of the above.

 

The hypocrisy is glaring.

So the lost of constitutional rights and freedoms would be OK, we just won't give them money to fix pot holes?

 

I thought we were discussing actions and reactions, not right and wrong.

 

The Feds are the Feds, they trump the State every time if they want to.

I thought we were discussing actions and reactions, not right and wrong.

 

The Feds are the Feds, they trump the State every time if they want to.

 

This is the perplexing part. Do you think that the Feds are watching the states that have legalized to see what happens before they act ? Obviously if they wanted to shut these operations down in these states it would have happened already.

 

Here's the twist: If the Federal government has not shut these states down, then why isn't every other state that is even considering legalization not jumping all over it ?

 

The business case for revenues clearly supports it...is the anti-legalization crowd carrying that much weight at the state level ? Or is it much deeper than that and the alcohol producers are having a say in it as well ?

 

Thoughts ?

This is the perplexing part. Do you think that the Feds are watching the states that have legalized to see what happens before they act ? Obviously if they wanted to shut these operations down in these states it would have happened already.

 

Here's the twist: If the Federal government has not shut these states down, then why isn't every other state that is even considering legalization not jumping all over it ?

 

The business case for revenues clearly supports it...is the anti-legalization crowd carrying that much weight at the state level ? Or is it much deeper than that and the alcohol producers are having a say in it as well ?

 

Thoughts ?

 

Obviously the Feds (at least under Obama) are not too concerned about the legalization of Marijuana. Generally speaking I think that is a good thing, as Ram said pot doesn't strain the system like alcohol does. Furthermore, I would rather have legalization and less Cartel influence in America than the opposite.

 

I really don't know the answer to this but I would think most Bible thumping states would be anti-marijuana which could be one reason every state hasn't jumped on board, additionally I would think the tobacco and especially the alcohol lobby would be strongly opposed to the legalization of marijuana.

I think the time and the place is right for this visual aid.

 

Obviously the Feds (at least under Obama) are not too concerned about the legalization of Marijuana. Generally speaking I think that is a good thing, as Ram said pot doesn't strain the system like alcohol does. Furthermore, I would rather have legalization and less Cartel influence in America than the opposite.

 

I really don't know the answer to this but I would think most Bible thumping states would be anti-marijuana which could be one reason every state hasn't jumped on board, additionally I would think the tobacco and especially the alcohol lobby would be strongly opposed to the legalization of marijuana.

Much of this debate is simply about economics -- making marijuana arrests is simply not cost-effective for law enforcement agencies anymore. The manpower can be used more effectively if MJ is no longer part of the equation. Having said that, I can easily see a scenario in which Alaska, Colorado and Washington State have to scrap marijuana free enterprise -- if a conservative Republican is elected president 21 months down the road.

Much of this debate is simply about economics -- making marijuana arrests is simply not cost-effective for law enforcement agencies anymore. The manpower can be used more effectively if MJ is no longer part of the equation. Having said that, I can easily see a scenario in which Alaska, Colorado and Washington State have to scrap marijuana free enterprise -- if a conservative Republican is elected president 21 months down the road.

 

I think you addressed a totally separate issue. We were discussing the Feds leaning on states that legalize marijuana, not local police enforcement of possession laws.

 

To your second point, I think every presidential candidate should have to be clear where they stand on the legalization of marijuana and if they will go after the states that already have legal marijuana.

To your second point, I think every presidential candidate should have to be clear where they stand on the legalization of marijuana and if they will go after the states that already have legal marijuana.

 

Completely disagree with that. If it isn't brought up, there's no need to make it known.

 

BTW, I'm for the legalization of it nation-wide, but it's not high on my priority list when looking for a potential POTUS.

Completely disagree with that. If it isn't brought up, there's no need to make it known.

 

BTW, I'm for the legalization of it nation-wide, but it's not high on my priority list when looking for a potential POTUS.

 

We disagree in principle then, I expect to know where elected officials stand on important issues so I can make an informed decision. And I believe this issue is important because it is a fundamental change in America with lots of powerful groups on each side of the issue.

We disagree in principle then, I expect to know where elected officials stand on important issues so I can make an informed decision. And I believe this issue is important because it is a fundamental change in America with lots of powerful groups on each side of the issue.

 

I expect to know as well. I just think it's the responsibility of the voter to do the research and find out.

I expect to know as well. I just think it's the responsibility of the voter to do the research and find out.

 

We disagree again, the candidates should be clear on this issue, we shouldn't have to dig, all that amounts to is wiggle room to do whatever they want after the fact.

We disagree again, the candidates should be clear on this issue, we shouldn't have to dig, all that amounts to is wiggle room to do whatever they want after the fact.

 

It's not that hard to visit a candidates website or perform simple google searches. If that's too much of an effort to make, that's nothing more than pure laziness.

It's not that hard to visit a candidates website or perform simple google searches. If that's too much of an effort to make, that's nothing more than pure laziness.

 

If they clearly state their stance on legalization and how they would address states where marijuana is already legal then I agree with you. But anything less than a clear, concise platform is unacceptable.