Bowing to Public Opinion, Trump and Harris Both Agree That Marijuana Should Be Legal

It remains unclear whether either would do anything about that as president.

After Donald Trump endorsed a Florida ballot initiative that would legalize recreational marijuana in that state, Kamala Harris accused her Republican opponent of flip-flopping on the issue. Yet the vice president herself did not publicly support marijuana legalization until 2018, when two-thirds of Americans already favored that policy.

The truth is that both presidential candidates have changed their positions on this issue over the years, reflecting a sea change in public opinion. But that does not necessarily mean that either, if elected, would invest any effort in addressing the untenable conflict between state marijuana laws and federal prohibition.

In 1990, when Trump was famous as a billionaire New York developer rather than a politician, he called the war on drugs "a joke" and recommended legalization instead. "We're losing badly the war on drugs," he said during a speech in Miami. "You have to legalize drugs to win that war."

In an interview after the speech, Trump said he hoped "people will start to realize that this is the only answer; there is no other answer." As a Republican presidential candidate 25 years later, he implausibly claimed his 1990 remarks did not count as an endorsement of legalization.

During that campaign, Trump's position on marijuana legalization was essentially the same as Hillary Clinton's. "I really believe we should leave it up to the states," he said, although he made it clear that he took a dim view of legalization, which he described as a "bad" policy that had caused "some big problems" in Colorado.

Despite Trump's avowed preference for letting states go their own way on marijuana policy, his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, rescinded a Justice Department memo that encouraged federal prosecutors to leave state-licensed cannabis suppliers alone. But no crackdown followed, and Sessions' successor, William Barr, did not even try to instigate one.

As president, Trump also proposed eliminating an annually renewed spending rider that bars the Justice Department from interfering with state medical marijuana programs. Nothing came of that either.

Those two moves, the Harris campaign argues, were plainly inconsistent with what Trump said in a Truth Social post on Saturday. Predicting that Florida voters will approve marijuana legalization in November, he cited reasons to welcome that outcome.

"Someone should not be a criminal in Florida" for possessing marijuana "when this is legal in so many other States," Trump wrote. Pot busts, he added, "ruin lives & waste Taxpayer Dollars."

It is fair to say that Trump's views on marijuana legalization have evolved. But the same is true of Harris.

As USA Today notes, "Harris has been criticized for aggressively prosecuting weed-related crimes when she was California's attorney general and San Francisco's district attorney, particularly given the racial disparities in punishment nationwide." She opposed a California legalization initiative in 2010, when she was the San Francisco district attorney; laughed at a question about legalization in 2014, when she was running for attorney general against a Republican who favored it; and declined, as California's attorney general, to take a position on the 2016 initiative that legalized recreational use in her state.

As a senator two years later, Harris finally took the plunge, saying, "We need to decriminalize marijuana nationwide." Later that year, she co-sponsored a bill that would have repealed the federal ban, and she introduced a similar bill in 2019.

President Joe Biden, by contrast, has always resisted federal legalization, and the 2024 Democratic platform says nothing about it. The Republican platform, meanwhile, does not even allude to marijuana reform.

That silence is striking, given that 38 states have legalized medical marijuana and 24 of them, accounting for most of the U.S. population, also allow recreational use. According to Gallup, 70 percent of Americans—including 87 percent of Democrats, 70 percent of independents, and 55 percent of Republicans—think marijuana should be legal.

As of Saturday, both major-party presidential candidates agree. But it remains unclear whether either is prepared to do anything about it.

© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Comments

[SQRLSY]

How many DEA agents and other federal power pigs would have to get honest jobs? Or maybe go on welfare, or become politicians? THIS is why we can't really and truly legalize it!

[AT]

I'm curious how you junkie sympathizers and addicts plan to handle widespread stoners when it comes to their overt danger to the public.

Like, take a simple DUI. With alcohol, it's easy. A field sobriety, a breathalyzer, maybe a blood draw back at the station. But what about a useless worthless degenerate stoner behind the wheel? How do you gauge that? A Romberg, at best?

This is one of the many reasons why the "alcohol = marijuana" arguments that addictarians make is bogus. But you'll notice that they never have an argument for it. Or even deign to consider the scenario.

It is fair to say that Trump's views on marijuana legalization have evolved.

If they're pro-marijuana views, Jakey Jakey News Fakey, then those views have devolved. Likely to pander to idiot druggies. You said it yourself: "Predicting that Florida voters will approve marijuana legalization in November, he cited reasons to welcome that outcome."

Meaning he's hoping he'll get votes for supporting it, off the backs of those who will vote for it. He doesn't actually give a single f one way or the other - same with abortion - he just says what he thinks that electorate wants to hear.

There is no valid pro-marijuana view. Period. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about it in any way. Not one single iota of an objective, rational argument can be made in its defense. No society in the history of the world has ever been benefitted by encouraging and facilitating its citizenry to be stoned.

Put on the nose, Jake.

[SQRLSY]

There is no valid pro-messy-housekeeping view. Period. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about it in any way. Not one single iota of an objective, rational argument can be made in its defense. No society in the history of the world has ever been benefited by encouraging and facilitating its citizenry to be messy housekeepers.

Outlaw messy housekeeping NOW, dammit!!!

Ditto illegal sub-humans, trannies, accused “groomers”, abortionists, gays, heathens, infidels, vaxxers, mask-wearers, atheists, dirty hippies, Jews, witches, or, the very WORST of them all, being one of those accused of STEALING THE ERECTIONS OF OUR DEAR LEADER, right, right-wing wrong-nuts? ANY methods are OK, so long as they are used against the CORRECT enemies, am I right?

[AT]

I have never met the hoarder whose disgusting living conditions led to them running down a pedestrian in their car because they were too stoned to know what was going on around them, or how said disgusting living conditions directly contributed to that the way the guy being stoned was. Have you?

[Quicktown Brix]

Hi AT.

I’m curious how you junkie sympathizers and addicts plan to handle widespread stoners when it comes to their overt danger to the public.

For pot? Uhh...do nothing and don't worry about how much fun my neighbors may be having or how they choose to relax.

But if we want to discuss hard drugs then the same way we do now. Legalization would largely result in addicts using more of their drug of choice and little change in non-users and recreation users. The number of junkies is unlikely to change much, but yes, those junkies will be using a lot more of their poison which doesn't affect me.

Furthermore, the danger to the public from addicts is largely due to their need for a next fix. Stoned frozen fentanyl zombies are harmless yoga pose statues. They only become a danger when they come down, unfreeze and need money for their next fix. The price of that fix is expensive due to prohibition. Under legalization drugs would be cheap and junkies can beg change for a fix like alcoholics do. They will not be productive, but they will not be as criminally active. They will spend more time frozen and less time victimizing others. The bigger benefit however would be to eliminate the violence associated with the black market for illegal drugs.

Straw man aversion disclaimer: I am not claiming legalizing drugs will eliminate all crime.

Like, take a simple DUI. With alcohol, it’s easy. A field sobriety, a breathalyzer...

Driving stoned and driving drunk are apples and oranges. As the common saying goes, "A drunk will blow through a stop sign, while a stoner will stop and patiently wait for it to turn green."

There's truth to this statement backed up in studies. Both pot and alcohol reduce reaction time, but not to the same degree. The big difference is that alcohol reduces self awareness and inhibitions and increases confidence. A drunk driver is confident, unaware of their impairments and aggressive. A stoned driver is aware of their impairments and compensates.

That's not to say driving stoned is safe, just that it's not the same as driving drunk. And if you can pass a roadside field sobriety test stoned, well then you're probably OK to drive if those tests are worth anything.

There is no valid pro-marijuana view. Period. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about it in any way. Not one single iota of an objective, rational argument can be made in its defense.

It's fun and relaxing for many people. How is this not redeeming?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Thanks for a more, ahem, sober reaction to the idiot.

[CLM1227]

Your argument on legalization not affecting who uses it is not based in reality. There is always going to be a subset of the population (likely not small, but we really have no way of knowing) who will choose to do or not do something based on its illegality/fear of being caught.

You can not claim there will be no change.

[Quicktown Brix]

You can not claim there will be no change.

I agree and I didn't. I said "little change" for recreational and non-users for hard drugs. Hard drugs is key here, because the danger of the drug itself serves as a big deterrent relative to the law.

There is always going to be a subset of the population (likely not small, but we really have no way of knowing) who will choose to do or not do something based on its illegality/fear of being caught.

I mostly agree which is why I was necessarily vague about "little change." We do have some ways of making educated guesses, and that's why I predicted there would be a small change.

European nations that have explored various types of legalization of hard drugs and found no increase in use. During alcohol prohibition in the US, alcohol consumption rates nearly recovered within a year after black market supply channels were established.

[AT]

Hi Brix. Always a pleasure to hear your insights.

Uhh…do nothing and don’t worry about how much fun my neighbors may be having or how they choose to relax.

I pretty specifically mentioned the case in which they hop in their car to go get their Funyuns and Cheezwhiz because the munchies take over. And only then, to point out the contrast of the difficulty of establishing DUI Marijuana vs DWI Alcohol.

The number of junkies is unlikely to change much, but yes, those junkies will be using a lot more of their poison which doesn’t affect me.

That's a myopic way of viewing it. In one regard, it's being dismissive of what you perceive of as an insignificant likelihood of causing you direct harm. "We shouldn't ban chainsaws because the likelihood of my being attacked by a chainsaw wielding maniac is low." But where that breaks down is where it applies to the rest of society. That's why we criminalize driving under the influence of alcohol. May not have ever harmed you or yours, but it's harmed plenty enough of others. To say nothing of non-physical harms, such as the destruction of local economies, property values, school systems, etc.

Now, that being said, in the spirit of compromise, I am entirely willing to engage the idea of "junkies using a lot more of their poison." Would you consider it a fair trade off if people can use drugs legally, but those drugs are made far more fatal? I mean, if we can market strains of marijuana that make smoking a joint have a 1:3 chance of instantly killing its user, then I'm all for that. Deal?

Under legalization drugs would be cheap and junkies can beg change for a fix like alcoholics do. They will not be productive, but they will not be as criminally active.

But we want them productive, don't we? And this plan clearly frustrates that goal. How low are we going to lower the bar to justify drug addiction?

Driving stoned and driving drunk are apples and oranges.

Are they though?

Y'know, I'm dating myself here - but remember this classic PSA?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vxCOqWxbhk

Y'know what's interesting is the stats actually say that driving while exhausted is more dangerous than both of them combined. Now, we can't really criminalize that, because what measurable standard do we have for determining how much sleep a person's had?

But we can with intoxicants. Both drugs and alcohol. So, why shouldn't we?

A stoned driver is aware of their impairments and compensates.

Are they though? Because back in college we used to draw a lot of dicks on a lot of faces of buddies who were too stoned to appreciate what was happening around them.

It’s fun and relaxing for many people. How is this not redeeming?

Are "fun" and "relaxing" the determinative qualifiers for discerning what is or isn't redeeming? And even if they are, why not make the contrast to all the various factors that make it NOT redeeming and see which way the scales tip?

[Quicktown Brix]

I pretty specifically mentioned the case in which they hop in their car to go get their Funyuns and Cheezwhiz because the munchies take over. And only then, to point out the contrast of the difficulty of establishing DUI Marijuana vs DWI Alcohol…

…That’s a myopic way of viewing it. In one regard, it’s being dismissive of what you perceive of as an insignificant likelihood of causing you direct harm…

I can address both of these with the same response: Yes, you are correct. I dismiss both of these as unlikely to cause me (or others) direct harm. I think it’s a poor use of government resources to prevent behavior unlikely to harm others. This is likely where our intuition differ and cause us to have an irreconcilable difference of opinion about this.

But we want them productive, don’t we?

It’s none of my business how others want to live. Only our welfare society gives a motivation to modify others behavior for our benefit.

…stats actually say that driving while exhausted is more dangerous than both of them combined. Now, we can’t really criminalize that, because what measurable standard do we have for determining how much sleep a person’s had…But we can with intoxicants. Both drugs and alcohol. So, why shouldn’t we?

We don’t have the technology right now to differentiate THC intoxication vs use days or even weeks before so we have the same difficulty as we do for exhaustion.

we can market strains of marijuana that make smoking a joint have a 1:3 chance of instantly killing its user, then I’m all for that. Deal?

As long as they’re labelled as those 1 in 3 strains and consumers can choose, sure.

Are they though? Because back in college we used to draw a lot of dicks on a lot of faces of buddies who were too stoned to appreciate what was happening around them.

Yes, they are absolutely more aware. Your college buddies were drunk or drunk and stoned, but they were not just stoned (on weed) because that’s just not how it works. Now being drunk and stoned and driving is an issue, but both a breathalyzer or a sobriety test will pick that up.

even if they are, why not make the contrast to all the various factors that make it NOT redeeming and see which way the scales tip?

Sure, if you worded it this way originally I wouldn’t have challenged it. I was only pushing back against the claim that it has “absolutely nothing redeeming about it in any way.”

[AT]

I dismiss both of these as unlikely to cause me (or others) direct harm. I think it’s a poor use of government resources to prevent behavior unlikely to harm others.

But, again, you're being myopic in the definition of "harm." We're not just talking about harm to you and yours. Unless you have a valid argument for why all those tent cities and shuffling panhandlers are a good thing. And we know that there's two primary contributors to that: mental illness (in which drug use often plays a major role) and drugs.

Why do we want that, Brix? Why is that an acceptable tradeoff for the completely unnecessary luxury of getting baked in one's parents basement? Alcohol doesn't give us that. Gambling doesn't give us that. Prostitution doesn't give us that. Drugs do. When the cost/benefit scale of drug use drops so far in the negative column, how can you continue to possibly justify it (let alone deny the myopia of your definition of its harm)?

It’s none of my business how others want to live.

Nonsense. If you raise a child to adulthood, would you want him to be a productive citizen that goes on to a good job, good family, and good life - or would you want him on cheap drugs or alcohol begging for change for a fix?

You and I both know it's not the latter, so don't pretend otherwise. So, why not hold out that hope, desire, and wish for everyone? I would LOVE to see all those panhandlers and tent vagrants off doing something better and more productive with their lives, wouldn't you?

It doesn't mean I'm responsible for (or even capable of) the means to make it happen, but I can certainly take a position that encourages productivity instead of discouraging it. And so can you. But you choose not to because... you think a liberty to get recreationally high now and then is more important?

We don’t have the technology right now to differentiate THC intoxication vs use days or even weeks before so we have the same difficulty as we do for exhaustion.

That's my point. In the absence of a meaningful ability to determine drug use's contribution to harm, the best course of action is to frustrate the ability to use drugs.

As long as they’re labelled as those 1 in 3 strains and consumers can choose, sure.

Nah, it's a surprise. Kind of a "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" thing.

Telling them which is the fatal one is like telling them which chamber the bullet's in when they play Russian Roulette. Defeats the point of the game.

Yes, they are absolutely more aware.

I mean, we know the effects because they've been long studied. Sensory perception altered. Attention/focus disruption. Short-term memory impairment. Temporal displacement. These are not things consistent with "more aware."

I was only pushing back against the claim that it has “absolutely nothing redeeming about it in any way.”

That's kinda pedantic. If I said, "there's absolutely nothing redeeming about cheating on your wife in any way," would you counter with some positives in defense of it by citing the physical pleasure of recreational sex or abating the symptoms of an unhappy marriage?

It deprives no rights, and physically harms no one - but there's still nothing redeeming about it, and its destructive nature far outweighs its benefit. It's indefensible on its face. Same with drugs.

[Quicktown Brix]

Unless you have a valid argument for why all those tent cities and shuffling panhandlers are a good thing. And we know that there’s two primary contributors to that: mental illness (in which drug use often plays a major role) and drugs.

I don’t think weed has anything to do with tent cities. Hard drugs, sure. And no they’re not a good thing. I think those vagrants should be arrested for trespassing, vandalism theft and otherwise dispersed.

Alcohol doesn’t give us that.

Disagree. And if alcohol was illegal, we’d see much more of it.

If you raise a child to adulthood, would you want him to be a productive citizen that goes on to a good job, good family, and good life – or would you want him on cheap drugs or alcohol begging for change for a fix?

Absolutely I want my children to be productive and I will make sure that happens and won’t rely on the government for any help. Nor do I want any responsibility to make sure anyone else’s children are productive including via taxation.

I agree we should encourage good and productive behavior as a society, but stop short of enforcing that by law because liberty includes letting people make poor choices.

I mean, we know the effects because they’ve been long studied. Sensory perception altered. Attention/focus disruption. Short-term memory impairment. Temporal displacement. These are not things consistent with “more aware.”

Yes, true, but I mean more aware relative to alcohol inebriation. The degree of the impairment is much less for weed.

That’s kinda pedantic…

OK. I took you too literally. It was a good faith mistake, I assure you.

[AT]

I don’t think weed has anything to do with tent cities.

That's because you draw spurious distinctions between drugs. Abusing this drug is fine, but abusing that one isn't. It's confirmation bias. You show me the tent city junkie that'll turn down a bong rip, and I'll eat my hat.

Disagree. And if alcohol was illegal, we’d see much more of it.

What makes you say that? Were there many tent cities during prohibition era that primarily existed because drunks abandoned civil society completely, and in doing so brought entire city blocks, if not entire districts down (in terms of residential/commercial/tourist value) in hopes of getting a taste of some bathtub gin that had a higher chance of making you blind before getting you drunk?

I agree we should encourage good and productive behavior as a society, but stop short of enforcing that by law because liberty includes letting people make poor choices.

But that doesn't mean we have to facilitate poor choices, or intentionally reject methods of frustrating the making of them. If you want to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, so be it - but rather than building a catwalk that says, "For suicidal jumpers," we build nets to catch them.

The goal being to discourage it, rather than tacitly (if not overtly) encourage it. If you're hellbent on suicide, nothing's going to stop you. But what's so wrong with putting up some preventative roadblocks to make it more difficult than easy to do so?

Yes, true, but I mean more aware relative to alcohol inebriation.

I think you'll find that's disputable. Tolerance levels vary, yadda yadda.

OK. I took you too literally. It was a good faith mistake, I assure you.

Fair enough.

[Quicktown Brix]

Alright, AT. I will give your arguments fair consideration and let you keep the last word in this thread. I'm sure we'll pick it up again sometime soon.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Bud, you already mentioned field sobriety tests. If a degenerate junkie stoner addict can pass a field sobriety test, is he not sober?

Two choices, bud: he is sober and your worries are groundless, or your field sobriety test is worthless. Make up your mind.

You face a similar problem with your reefer madness attitude. Stoners zone out, right? Eat too much? Watch test patterns and giggle? Pretty damned harmless, all things considered. Whereas "mean drunk" is all too common. It's drunks who start fights, who come back to bars they've been thrown out of and shoo up the joint. I've never heard of stoners shooting up dispensaries, unless they're out to rob the place because federal and state laws force them to do all business in cash and they can't even have bank accounts.

You lose, bud. Go pedal your tricycle somewhere else.

[mad.casual]

I’ve never heard of stoners shooting up dispensaries, unless they’re out to rob the place because federal and state laws force them to do all business in cash and they can’t even have bank accounts.

^ Right where your argument went off the rails.

I was with you up to that point. The same point you raise about the field sobriety test applies here. Either stoners are docile, passive people just looking to have a good time or they’re (or an element of them, just like all drunks aren’t mean) persistently on the verge of shooting up and robbing a place that deals with large amounts of cash.

Traveling fairs, zoos and parks, craft breweries, swap meats, etc., etc., etc. all run on large volumes of cash specifically because the nature of the business doesn’t lend itself to banks and credit card processing. Nobody worries about amusement park patrons (or an element of them) returning to rob the place.

From the other side as well, Apple stores, shoe stores, high(er) end clothing stores don’t do a lot of their business in cash either, doesn’t seem to stop looters from making off with profitable amounts of goods.

Are you trying to assert that marijuana is less addictive and/or associated with crime than tennis shoes or lulu lemon pants or that the only association is, paradoxically, because of risk-averse banking regulations? Really?

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

It's not the stoners shooting up the dispensaries. SGT phrased that poorly.

The dispensaries do, however, face a heightened risk of robbery due to their high volume all cash business, and the lack of an ability to ever reduce the volume of cash they have, due to the prohibition on banking they face. Every other place you mention can make nightly deposits. Though you should likely take "craft breweries" off the list. Every one I've ever been to took credit cards.

[mad.casual]

It’s not the stoners shooting up the dispensaries. SGT phrased that poorly.

So the people robbing the dispensaries definitively aren't pot users and the people knocking over amusement parks and lulu lemon stores are definitively addicted to roller coasters and tight pants?

Every other place you mention can make nightly deposits.

You've never actually worked at a fair or a swap meat have you? Otherwise done business predominantly up front and in cash, no?

Once again, I'm not saying pot should be categorically illegal but I stand by my WTF is wrong with you? It's like ENB trying to pretend that sex work is just like any other work.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You've never investigated the cash take of pot dispensaries, have you? Never thought about store owners who go home and night and have no protection against burglars robbing stores or waylaying the owners if they take all that cash with them? Tell me, do the carnies you know depopulate to zero every night? Does one person handle all that cash from flea markets, or is it hundreds of individuals each with only amounts smaller than what a pot dispensary takes in a few minutes?

[mad.casual]

Does one person handle all that cash from flea markets, or is it hundreds of individuals each with only amounts smaller than what a pot dispensary takes in a few minutes?

The dispensaries that aren’t nearly as crowded as a swap meet?

Again, which is it. Drunk or sober? The person is responsible for their behavior or the drugs made them do it? There can be no personal financial security without banks or centralized banking within the reach of the law is the bane of the fringe product and peer groups? Dispensaries are gold mines packed by the wealthiest and most upstanding of clients or they’re 7-11s waiting to get knocked over by any given patron, who totally isn’t a junkie, that may walk in the door?

And you whine about me being a broken mirror.

[mad.casual]

Every other place you mention can make nightly deposits.

Craft breweries aside, none of the others can pay cash up front and erect physical and/or technological barriers against crime... like a dispensary can.

Also, every craft brewery I've been to, on a good night, had multiple full registers, every employee walking out with pockets full of cash, and can't just convert all the cash to digital simply because they take credit cards. Of all the craft breweries you've been to, did you ever feel like someone was going to rob it or shoot up the place they were a mean drunk or because they weren't running cash to the bank often enough?

Again, I'm not saying pot should be illegal or de-banked. I'm just pointing out that even bootleggers can and do drape themselves in the shroud of the persecuted victim, demonize their own undesirables, and proselytize well beyond objective truth.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

Also, I believe a "swap meat" would be more commonly known as a "brothel"... or possibly a "bathhouse". 😉

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I was with you right until you compared expensive pot sales with cheap flea markets and carnies, which are also a whole lot more crowded than pot stores.

Did you really read into what I wrote that stoners come back to rob pot stores? If so, that says more about what conclusions you jump to than my poor writing skills.

Just as hard drugs are dangerous almost entirely due to being illegal, thus expensive and limited to illegal enforcement mechanisms, so are pot stores robbed because governments put banks off limit and they have to keep cash on hand for everything, far more cash then carnies and flea markets. Ever wonder why supermarkets aren't robbed as often as convenience stores, even though convenience stores have far less cash on hand? Crowds, that's why. No robber worth his salt wants all those crowds of witnesses. Shoplifters, sure, especially with police and prosecutors playing catch and release. But armed robbery?

Same reasons combine for robbers hitting pot stores. Lots of cash, by government edict, few customers, and unarmed store employees, again by government edict. Nothing to do with what they sell; same thing would apply if bacon had the same restrictions.

[mad.casual]

Just as hard drugs are dangerous almost entirely due to being illegal

*Almost* entirely? Well now it *almost* sounds like you were being disingenuous and you're *almost* as likely to run into a stoner looking to knock over a dispensary or gas station or attack Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha are you are to encounter a mean drunk who shoots up a bar. Or, at the very least, the association between drugs, people like Jordan Neely and George Floyd, and the crime they cause isn't so neatly packaged as your "If drugs were legal, there wouldn't have been a problem." would suggest.

they have to keep cash on hand for everything, far more cash then carnies and flea markets. Ever wonder why supermarkets aren’t robbed as often as convenience stores, even though convenience stores have far less cash on hand? Crowds, that’s why. No robber worth his salt wants all those crowds of witnesses.

Wait, so they're far, far less crowded but they, somehow, keep far, far more cash on hand? Again, like the sobriety test, which is it? You do realize that a closed swap meet or carnival is pretty much as crowded as a closed dispensary, right? That you can actually erect physical barriers around and security infrastructure within a dispensary that you couldn't possibly put into those other places, right?

same thing would apply if bacon had the same restrictions.

Bacon consumers would show up to smokehouses and kill people over bacon prohibition? WTF?

You sure aren't convincing me that you haven't smoked yourself retarded but go ahead and keep trying if it makes you feel better.

Again, I'm not in favor of pot prohibition, but your narrative about how "If we just legalize it, all the cartels, traffickers, and dealers will just get jobs at soup kitchens and grocery stores." sounds astoundingly out of touch and pollyanna-esque in a distinctly, if not motivatedly, 'learn to code'/'open the borders'/'no one would ever knowingly use fentanyl'/'sex work is work' fashion.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Get over it. I did not say pot users robbed pot stores, and if you think I did, I and others have clarified that. If you want to hang on to your lie to yourself, that is your problem and you are arguing with a broken mirror.

[mad.casual]

I did not say pot users robbed pot stores,

I didn't say you said pot users robbed pot stores. Once again, this is a journalism/Reason Magazine/"wet roads cause rain" understanding of what I did say.

What you *did* say was, "It’s drunks who start fights, who come back to bars they’ve been thrown out of and shoo(t) up the joint."

You then went on to, even more retardedly, say "same thing would apply if bacon had the same restrictions"

What I said was that you don't get to say "Sober (legal, non-violent) or drunk (illegal, violent/destructive), pick one." and then turn around and hedge against alcohol using "mean drunks". You aren't refuting the logic of "Reefer madness" you're just substituting "Mean drunk madness" because the propaganda suits you. Either the guy was a sociopath who just happened to drink or the alcohol made him did something he wouldn't otherwise do the way any given criminal can test positive for MJ and have that chalked up as motivating their actions.

Get over it? *You're* the one whining about dispensaries having mountains of cash, no customers, and being less likely to be shot up than your average bar, like Barack Obama complaining about how black men like him have been held down in this country for too long, questioning why more people don't take your cause more seriously.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

Yes, AT. We know you favor tightly controlling what other people can consume, and not merely criminal behaviors.

Fuck off, slaver.

[AT]

Language.

It's not about controlling what people can consume - that's an unfortunate side effect, to be sure - it's just that there's no upside, at all, to a society of drug-addled losers. None. None whatsoever. And I defy you to make an argument to the contrary.

[Roberta]

There's too much attention on driving while intoxicated as is. Just ticket for bad driving, and don't go looking for reasons.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

DUI lacking property damage or death or injury is pre crime enforcement. Really puzzles me that so many "libertarians" are cool with that.

[AT]

Believe it or not, I actually consider that a valid argument. My position has always been that those people should be stopped from driving, have their vehicles towed to impound, put in a cab, and assume the costs for it all.

Because you're right, it is very precrime-y.

That being said, it's but one aspect of the overall problem of drug addiction and abuse which is far more socially destructive than alcohol could ever be. Folks try to always innocently paint it as getting high in the basement and just having a good time - but experience tells us that it's far more destructive than that on the wider scale. Alcohol causes barfights and domestic abuse and vehicular homicide. Awful to be sure. But drugs cause tent cities and gang violence and roaming hordes of derelicts. And vehicular homicide.

This is why I said that the drugs = alcohol argument is bogus. Drugs are far worse. Far, far worse and more destructive.

[Roberta]

"Redeeming"? People like it. What more redemption do you need?

[AT]

"People like it" is not the definition of "redeeming."

[windycityattorney]

I like how you think prohibition of cannabis accomplished anything other than wasting tax dollars. Survey after federal survey showed marijuana was just as easy to get for high school seniors as alcohol throughout prohibition.

You cannot stop people from accessing a plant that grows in most every conceivable climate. And you can't come up with a good reason as to why the government has the right to stop me from growing it and consuming it.

Alcohol and cannabis are NOT the same and have different effects when it comes to motor skills and driving. Driving high is not even close to driving drunk as alcohol is a central nervous system depressant and marijuana is not. Its like comparing apples to footballs. Not that you know the difference.

Your snide comments about junkies is stupid. You really really need to eat a gummie or smoke a joint and chill the f out. Hate is unhealthy and stress causes health problems. Problems that cannabis is uniquely suited to address.

[AT]

I love it. I love this post. This is the epitome of stoner mentality.

"If you'd just do drugs like I do, you'd get it! It's nothing but good things. You can't stop it anyway. It ain't like that other stuff, this stuff is goooood. Just try it, man!"

You are literally the Peer Pressure guy that students everywhere are warned about.

Are you a dealer perhaps? Like, one of those dudes that hangs out around middle schools trying to lure the kids into taking a hit so that you can get a new user?

[Art Gecko]

I'll drink to that!!1!

[TJJ2000]

The Union of States has ZERO business controlling interstate substances.
Maybe if anyone plans on keeping a USA they might LEARN what a USA is (US Constitution).

[Roberta]

sI don’t see how Trump’s statements over the decades has flip-flopped. He never said legalization was a bad thing, only that Colorado and Washington had problems with how they did it. which is something many libertarians have said, and that other states should study and learn from those mistakes. And he got rid of Sessions not far into his term.

But Harris?! No comparison.

[CLM1227]

I agree with you. Trump has always had a strong inclination to leave social and culture policies to the states. He’s been remarkably consistent on this, overtime, in campaigning, and in office.

When he says he wants to ban or legalize something through federal channels, get back to me. Then, we might have a legitimate flip-flop.

[NoVaNick]

Both parties now are paying lip service to pot legalization, but our betters in public health are already flipping out about the kiddos having access to it and how bad it is for them and everyone that there’s a new addictive substance more readily available.

[Art Gecko]

I'm still waiting for any state to legalize MJ. None of them have; they've cartelized it. Legalization would involve nothing more than repealing the law that makes it illegal.

[damikesc]

Trump might do something.

Kamala could do something right now. She is not.

That is your answer in regards to her.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Trump has said he will vote for decriminalization in the State of Florida where he is a resident. I don't read Jacob's screeds but I assume he's trying to rehabilitate Harris who put 1500 men in jail for marijuana offenses as AG of California and did nothing as Vice president to liberalize MJ enforcement. In fact she didn't do anything consequential as vice president. As president, Trump's DOJ ended federal prosecution of medical marijuana users in states where it was legal, after 8 years of those rigged trials under Obama. As a private citizen in FL he has declared his intention to vote for decriminalization. There is zero likelihood that he will suddenly become an MJ drug warrior if elected. Kamala on the other hand will not personally take ownership of any of her policy reversals. Instead her "campaign" informs us on a daily basis based on the latest polling. Anybody who believes this campaign propaganda will result in any expansion of liberty if she is elected is a fucking idiot. Looking at you Jacob.

[d.b]

Camel-a put something like 1900 human beings into cages for marijuana alone during her career as SF DA and as California's state attorney general..... or as she put it; the state's "Top Cop".
Trump let over 29,000 people out of the insane, and sometimes life-no-parole federal prison sentences they had gotten under Joe Biden's drug-war laws.Trump did this by his signatures on the republican First Step Act and the democrat CARES Act.
Also; the First Step Act killed the worst parts of Biden's 1994 "violent pothead" law, so no one else will ever by tortured like that again by the drug warrior in chief. Of course: some illiterate make-stuff-up democrat will claim that I'm lying.