23536;11113633 said:
why is a new law required to simply detail a procedure to enforce an existing law?23536;11113633 said:
alasdair
Feds remain AWOL as public pot smoking begins
- Thread starter alasdairm
- Start date
alasdair
Figures, The Feds Have Always Been Wishy-Washy with when and where they enforce their power. Maybe they have given up? Lets Hope!
Lets Hope! 
Clocktower;11126016 said:
I don't think it specifies the forms of drugs which it claims to be illegal; one of which is DMT, which is found in all living beings.
It's unconstitutional.
B
will try to get back to more points, but re constitutionality: not only is the illegalization of something based on nothing more than "gets you high" a violation of the constitution, but CSA from '71 (which nixon setup to get us in-line with the UN's global ruling at the time, and 2yrs later used as jumping ground for launching the ill-fated war on drugs in '73) is absolutely in violation AND an incredibly strong case can be made that, since prohibiting alcohol required amending the constitution to allow doing so, of course marijuana and other drugs woudl require such amendments.
The feds' cling to stuff like the commerce clause, or the DEA, to keep their hands in the drug industry; they need to accept it, take it over / nationalize, and then tax / handle it as appropriately as they can. Criminal / WOD approaches have failed beyond measure; when stronger narcotics were proliferating through mid1900's, the criminal approach was the US's and UN's chosen approach. Look at cocaine in the US- since starting WOD in '73, prices still steadily plummeted while quality rose. Today, we see that not only was the WOD unable to do more than possibly slowing getting to the current point of market saturation, but that it was a nightmare in many other social areas (freedom; economics re spending on the war from cops to legal to imprisonment)
The feds' cling to stuff like the commerce clause, or the DEA, to keep their hands in the drug industry; they need to accept it, take it over / nationalize, and then tax / handle it as appropriately as they can. Criminal / WOD approaches have failed beyond measure; when stronger narcotics were proliferating through mid1900's, the criminal approach was the US's and UN's chosen approach. Look at cocaine in the US- since starting WOD in '73, prices still steadily plummeted while quality rose. Today, we see that not only was the WOD unable to do more than possibly slowing getting to the current point of market saturation, but that it was a nightmare in many other social areas (freedom; economics re spending on the war from cops to legal to imprisonment)
That's because the CIA was bringing it in for usbmxxx said:
B
no, it's because after dismantling pablo's org, which was close to a monopoly, the industry became more efficient (as was expected. enter lehder and medellin cartel). The further we attack these industries and break up power, teh more efficient they become, it's basic economics bra.
^that is stunningly true
B
it is (thnx), but it's not to say the CIA<and many other org's operating under official gov sanction> aren't involved heavily; this isn't conspiracy tho, it's simply the reality of drugs being so relevant to our culture/society, and us trying to gain control (however, our methods completely suck. For instance, dissolving the DEA and creating a REA(Rehabilitation enforcement agency*) would do worlds for the influence that can be had)
*= i say that jokingly, as i'm not even sure i think the gov's proper role is to be involved AT ALL, but i'm probably more "socially darwinistic" than most ppl have stomachs for. However, IF the idea is to let the state have control over something with such magnitude as the entirety of 'intoxication', then teh most effective routes are things like cornering rehabilitation, controlling sales, etc. Few are unaware that i'd love to see a gov-regulated/nationalized/fully-legalized narcotics industry. We have ATF<think acronym is different now> for alcohol, which is what is probably the best type of framework to apply to the rest of the psychoactives. The reality is that you cannot stop intoxication, so if a governing body wants to have a say, it needs to swap from its 'war' and move to practical things (plz tell me i don't need to elaborate on what those are, for thh millionth time)
*= i say that jokingly, as i'm not even sure i think the gov's proper role is to be involved AT ALL, but i'm probably more "socially darwinistic" than most ppl have stomachs for. However, IF the idea is to let the state have control over something with such magnitude as the entirety of 'intoxication', then teh most effective routes are things like cornering rehabilitation, controlling sales, etc. Few are unaware that i'd love to see a gov-regulated/nationalized/fully-legalized narcotics industry. We have ATF<think acronym is different now> for alcohol, which is what is probably the best type of framework to apply to the rest of the psychoactives. The reality is that you cannot stop intoxication, so if a governing body wants to have a say, it needs to swap from its 'war' and move to practical things (plz tell me i don't need to elaborate on what those are, for thh millionth time)
^ That Lehder guy... Let me just say his wikipedia entry really sparked my interest. You can PM me if you wanna know why, 
mind-blowing...
mind-blowing...
B
lehder is supposedly still in custody, tho i HIGHLY doubt that. the guy had funds that rivaled any modern-day financial CEO (or, in today's drug-figures, a chapo guzman). He was running product from escobar in the early 70's when coke was *exploding* into the US market (where it quickly created what economists would call a "saturated market", plz do look that up if you think his success was based on ANYTHING other than 95% circumstance)
/guy ran ppl off of "norman's cay" in the bahamas, to create what was basically a narco-territory/enterprise/business-hub, and had OBSCENE success for some years before being taken down, as anyone in such a position should expect to come as surely as gravity (IIRC, his fall happened when shit went bad at norman's cay, and he tried to buy safety in panama under noriega, but unfortunately for him the US was looking to put down noriega at the time, so i guess you could conclude his grasp on world politics wasn't *NEARLY* as savvy as his business skills.
/carlos lehder is the 'latin' dude in blow who's next to johnny depp. IRL he's german/colombian IIRC.
/guy ran ppl off of "norman's cay" in the bahamas, to create what was basically a narco-territory/enterprise/business-hub, and had OBSCENE success for some years before being taken down, as anyone in such a position should expect to come as surely as gravity (IIRC, his fall happened when shit went bad at norman's cay, and he tried to buy safety in panama under noriega, but unfortunately for him the US was looking to put down noriega at the time, so i guess you could conclude his grasp on world politics wasn't *NEARLY* as savvy as his business skills.
/carlos lehder is the 'latin' dude in blow who's next to johnny depp. IRL he's german/colombian IIRC.
B
if you wanna give him shit tho, his initiative in launching it as a war is where the scorn should go. The CSA was something we almost 'had' to do after the UN single convention on narcotics; CSA was our way of complying, but the war we launched was above and beyond and becomes moreso daily :/
^ JFK was actually pardoning several people incarcerated under the original narcotics act of 1956... 575 people to be exact I believe that's (partially) the reason he was was assasinated. Along with his disapproval of NorthWoods.. And wanting to pull out of Vietnam... And probably some other reasons we don't even know about...
Did you know GHW Bush implicated a politician from Houston (who later became JP I went to court for a traffic ticket) in the Kennedy assasination? This was before he was a politician... Talk about mudslinging ... Check out that link to his company's profile. It's got lots of juicy info on CIA connections and also the infamous Contra operations...
The WoD has been an extremely powerful motivating factor in politics in the last century or so...
Did you know GHW Bush implicated a politician from Houston (who later became JP I went to court for a traffic ticket) in the Kennedy assasination? This was before he was a politician... Talk about mudslinging ... Check out that link to his company's profile. It's got lots of juicy info on CIA connections and also the infamous Contra operations...
The WoD has been an extremely powerful motivating factor in politics in the last century or so...
B
agreed - but what i cannot wrap my head around is that we can have MORE power by legalizing/nationalizing (arguably we could have an obscenely larger amount of power, depending on the way we set it up)
I mean, really, even if the *entirety* of the WoD were a shell to allow us to manipulate those markets, i don't see how we could not have more influence and control it EVEN MORE by legalizing. Black market profits are larger per unit price, but the sheer level of control in an open market would significantly overshadow that.
[this post is strictly w/ regards to power/economics/influence, and w/o regard for ethics/social concerns/public health/etc]
Any and all restrictions on using a plant present on this planet is truly an infants view of morality. Yet mostly if woman can keep the Goverment out of there uterus' then they need to keep them out of my lungs and or brownies! Criminalize poison ivy,oak,sumac!! And the poison mushrooms of death!!!
B
...k.
B
so, when nobody acknowledges a post, you wait a week and re-submit/bump this?
/welcome to bl, we're lucky to have ya.
/welcome to bl, we're lucky to have ya.
ahh its ok
welcome
and the latest evidence shows that JFK really wasn't going to pull out of 'Nam
welcome
and the latest evidence shows that JFK really wasn't going to pull out of 'Nam