Fed to take away Grandma's glaucoma meds

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44806723/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/calif-pot-dispensaries-told-feds-shut-down/&gt1=43001

Here's my argument for why marijuana ought to be legalized - everybody I know thinks it should be. My parents, my grandparents, all my friends, my teachers, my cousins and siblings - basically I have yet to come across even one single person who is outright against the legalization of marijuana. Both sides of the political fence also seem to support it - the right because they see prohibition as an attack on freedom, the left because they see banning marijuana as an attack on their particular form of counter-culture.

So if support for legalization is so damn pervasive, why was marijuana banned in the first place? The best argument I've heard is that it was a combo attack of moral guardians and the cotton lobby, but frankly that sounds a bit far fetched. I'm not sure for what historical reasons we have banned recreational drug use, but the fact is that whatever those reasons were, they just don't seem all that compelling to most people (that I know, at any rate) anymore.

...I personally support unbanning all drugs... for use in private.

I support banning all public smoking, however. If only because second-hand smoke makes it not only your problem any more.

Such is why medical cannabis should be made into inhaler form (they apparently are working on this) so it can be used in public with no fuss...

Why it's banned? Well, aside from medical use, people use it for hedonistic reasons.

Moral Guardians can't stand the thought that somewhere someone is feeling pleasure: If it's not one of the vices they partake in, it needs to be banned! Of course, politicians are firmwared to cater to Moral Guardians by default, so that's what we get.

On this case, this is an untolerable intrusion of the Feds on California, which should be sovereign. In my opinion, California should mobilize the National Guard and prevent the DEA from raiding the dispensaries.

edited 6th Oct '11 4:01:52 PM by SavageHeathen

I support legalization on the grounds that it would also become taxable, and thus contribute somewhat to reducing deficits. That's really all I have to say on the matter.

...at which point the Federal Government would simply nationalize the Guardsmen. Or, bring in other Guardsmen.

Really, now, I cannot comprehend why such a thing would seem like a good idea, especially since as the current trend runs, we're moving towards general legalization anyhow.

Stupidity now is not worth anything if patience will lead to a much more painless changeover.

At which point California might contest the nationalization, force a constitutional crisis and thoroughly discredit Federal power.

The fucking Feds want to take us back three decades: They should be prevented from doing so by any and all means at California's disposal. Besides, plenty of States would jump at the chance of discrediting the Feds and crippling their power (in favor of their own): In a paradoxical way, the neoconfederate States' Rights crazies land might find a productive use after all...

If the Feds mess with California's legalization, California should SECEDE: No price is too much for breaking free of the DEA's tyranny.

edited 6th Oct '11 4:11:06 PM by SavageHeathen

...

I don't think there's a constitutional case, there. The Federal Government would simply declare a general state of emergency, and the nationalization would be legal. Not to mention the militia would be in rebellion anyhow, and the Federal Government's job is to maintain order, so...

Most people would also backlash against drug legalization. You'd look like a homicidal zealot who thinks his right to get high is worth more than the several thousand lives even a minor military clash in US borders could cost.

Or, you know, you could be sane and just do it the normal way like all the rest of us average people...

Oh I'd love to see an out and out smackdown between California and the Fed over this. Maybe Obama would pay some attention if it came to that - seriously, is this guy really a Democrat? Lately, I'm not so sure.

...Obama is a person, and people don't usually just unquestioningly follow their party's bottom line.

When the Federal Government saw that California meant business and was willing to fight them over it, they'd back the fuck down.

There's a more damning consequence for Obammy: The California Democratic Party could break off from the national party. That's the endgame for the Dems, and they'd force Obama to back down.

edited 6th Oct '11 4:17:43 PM by SavageHeathen

Oh, yes, because California is really going to take on the largest government on Planet Earth and win.

It's not a matter of winning, it's a matter of making it prohibitive for the Feds to meddle in California's internal affairs.

Let's not forget California has nukes they could seize from the Feds, and then the nuclear deterrent kicks in and every sane person on Earth would advise the Feds to leave the Californians be.

edited 6th Oct '11 4:20:37 PM by SavageHeathen

...

Yeah, still, they'd lose.

Really, you can't win this fight. Not the way you're trying to do it.

Legalization of drugs is like a heavy-duty lock with a bomb underneath. You need several fine lockpicks and a bomb squad before you're going to get in.

And so instead you just say "fuck it" and get a crowbar and a hammer and hope you can get in that way instead...

Edit: You fail nuclear warfare theory forever. If such a thing were likely, they'd just destroy the nukes.

edited 6th Oct '11 4:21:12 PM by USAF713

thump.

edited 6th Oct '11 4:21:26 PM by SavageHeathen

California has no right to secede, not to mention that doing so over the whole pot thing is really fucking stupid. (Basically, no one's had the right to secede since the Civil War.) It would be far, far too costly to California to do such a thing and only end in ignominious defeat. Very few would take them seriously. And um... the nukes may be in California, but doesn't own them; the Feds do, and they have a very specific command structure in place to launch those. I doubt they would launch them for this; nuking your own country is... fucking ridiculous.

As for why it's getting banned; I don't know about cotton, but I'd say tobacco companies have more stake in keeping a monopoly on the luxury smokes industry. And, well, the support for legalization tends to be among the much younger crowd that hasn't yet had the opportunity to get into the establishment and make this a widespread, accepted policy issue. Basically, the Old Guard needs to get voted and or die of old age so the New Guard can get in and legalize marijuana. Also, the medical researchers that are trying to make bank on medications probably have something to do with it. It's a cutthroat industry, the medical research field.

edited 6th Oct '11 4:23:50 PM by AceofSpades

@USAF - good point, good point, my feathers are just getting a little bit ruffled right now as a young person who the powers that be seem to be ignoring. It's the Gen Y folks that are having the worst time with finding jobs right now, but somehow we are the ones who are expected to just take our bitter medicine from the ruling elite with nothing in return. All of my social security is going to end up paying off the federal debt, I ended up back in school because apparently its my generations' fault that the baby boomers think we are all "lazy do nothings" (seriously, I've read oh so many articles about how nobody wants to hire generation Y because they are simply assuming that because we were raised on saturday morning cartoons and mario we are somehow not fit workers).

And despite all this heartbreak and downright agism, we do not want all that much - enough money to live off of, a decent wage, and maybe a little toke now and then. But no, the baby boomers can't even let us have that (despite getting to enjoy the 60s themselves). Anyways, I'm frustrated, and I feel somewhat betrayed by the man who convinced me to vote him into office with such phrases as "Sure I inhaled. that was the point".

I still think that California should secede, whatever the cost. The Feds shouldn't be allowed to meddle in liberal States, and they need to be prevented from doing so.

edited 6th Oct '11 4:38:16 PM by SavageHeathen

Yeah, there's no point in seceding when it's not going to work and serves NO PURPOSE. If there's nothing practical to gain and no practical way to do it, what's the fucking point? California would get bitch slapped back into submission if they tried to pull such a fool ass move. Anyway, if it's not related to the pot legalization discussion, it's getting off topic. You can start a thread on secession if you want.

Well, then join the corner for "ridiculous extremists" who all think their particular pet ideologies are worth any and all human lives necessary to implement.

In the meantime, us sane people will try and figure out an actual solution to the problem.

Your solution won't work: The DEA will just jail those people, the Feds will impose their evil will over that of the people of California, and drug legalization will be set back for decades. Adding insult to injury, drug users will be disfranchised so the vote for legalization gets more and more rigged in the fundies' favor every day.

The Feds will never legalize, the freedoms of drug users depend on the pro-pot States preventing the Feds from oppressing their residents.

This thread is about the Feds meddling in California's business, so I think calling for California to kick the DEA out is on-topic.

edited 6th Oct '11 4:47:26 PM by SavageHeathen

I'm kind of ambivalent on marijuana legalisation. I mean, I don't think it's really any better or worse than alcohol, so coming up with a reason for alcohol to be legal and marijuana not is tricky. But on the same hand - alcohol causes enough deaths (car accidents, etc) as it is, why would we want more drugs to be available?

And all in all, it just seems unimportant to me. If you don't need it for medical reasons, what effect does not smoking marijuana have on your life? You lose one hobby. Boo hoo. Go find something else to do with your time, it's not such a big deal.

As far as other drugs go, I honestly think cigarettes might become a thing of the past in my lifetime. We're being bombarded with so many "cigarettes are killing you" ads, I have difficulty imagining that the next generation is going to grow up thinking they're 'cool' like previous ones.

You say never like things have never changed for the better in this country. Except, oh wait, the Jim Crow laws have been abolished and the KKK has be marginalized into irrelavence. There's ways to to get pot legalized without doing something fucking ridiculous; it's called voting, and pressuring your representatives to do what you want, and generally picking the battles that will actually benefit you.

Now, can we please get back on topic? We're veering off and you are perfectly capable of starting a thread about secession, revolution, and the reasons you should do it.

• 1) "Evil" is meaningless.
• 2) Drug users aren't the only people who support legalization.
• 3) Drug use was legal 100 years ago, so it can certainly be legalized again.
• 4) The government has decent reasons to be attacking drugs; chronic public health issues and the association with rampant crime being among them. It just so happens that this is the entirely wrong direction to approach the issue from.

Please, find a better argument than "it's evil because I don't like it so we should kill all these people I don't like." You use it for everything and I'm tired of the libertarian broken record.

and Anti-drug folks rig the elections by disfranchising drug users (a significant fraction of the population, and the most likely to favor drug legalization). Since a big chunk of one side is regularly disfranchised, relying on democracy to legalize drugs is a fool's errand.

I'm getting out of this thread, since the general consensus is that Californians should just submit to DC's tyranny.

edited 6th Oct '11 4:54:44 PM by SavageHeathen

...so convince non-drug users that it's worth their time to vote for it.

It's not that hard, really. Most people are reasonable enough that explaining why it doesn't work, what would work, and why they shouldn't give a shit if other people do it.

In the meantime, I'll take flawed democracy over horrendous revolution. Especially considering that you seem to think just about any slight is worth killing thousands of people over.