Bitcoin Forum

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/house-committee-approves-bill-decriminalizing-marijuana-on-the-federal-level.html


Still has to make it through the full house, but I bet it dies in senate. Republicans love to use these crimes to lock up minorities.


https://judiciary.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-judiciary-passes-more-act-decriminalize-marijuana-federal-level

Lets be real for a second. Both parties get money from people who benefit from Marijuana being illegal. I'll even go through a list of people relating to this.

Sherrifs Unions and Police Unions support both sides.
Private Prisons go typically Republican.
Correctional Unions support both sides.
Big Pharma supports both sides.

Democrats in the house are able to vote this one up because they know it has no consequences. They know they can still raise money for their elections either way, because their decisions aren't going to go any further then this vote.

Do I think that Marijuana should be legal on a federal level? Yes. Though I think the best course of action is to allow for the federal government to have no stance, and leave it up to the states on if they want to keep it legal. I think that's the best way to make people involved on the state level (and the level that is closest to them)

But think. Decriminalizing isn't the same as legalizing. Decriminalize, but don't legalize. Legalization is almost as bad as criminalization. The difference is the ways it is almost as bad. Rather, decriminalize, and let us be free.

Btw, upon decriminalization, free all the illegal drug users who were never convicted of hurting anyone.

8)

private prisons can still make money even if people are not convicted with just taking drugs.

all thy do is realise they have more room to keep people with higher crimes for longer. so it becomes making murders get full life behind bars rather than early release due to overcrowding(good behaviour excuse). thus prisons retain the same budget because their cells remain full but this time of high level criminals doing more time

i find it foolish to release murder and rapists early just to make room for someone that has not harmed another person (drugs for personal use only)

You left out Lawyers, who have the single largest cash grab from marijuana being illegal, and who are > 90% Democrat.

Did leave out lawyers, and I apoligize for that. Though that stat most likely isn't true.

From the information which I sourced from http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/ - it seems like certain portions of law are more democrat and other portions are more republican, though the split seems to be in the realm of 70-30 Democrat.

I am in favor of the decriminalizing of marijuana as I am in favor of the medical use of marijuana. Marijuana has some medicinal benefits and even cannabis oil used to treat some kind of cancer. When it is beneficial it should be utilized and used.

Very soon people are going to claim that hard drugs like cocaine and heroin has some medicinal properties and they are going to advocate that people start using it and soon it would be widely accepted the same way that Marijuana is going to be accepted.

That's funny you say that, because according to the government, both cocaine and heroin both are classified as having some medical benefit while marijuana is classified as having none. Cocaine and heroin have a long history of medical use. That said, drugs are bad mmmkay. What is worse though is a tyrannical government dictating to everyone what they put in their bodies, and using possession of a substance as an excuse to steal, imprison, torture, and strip human rights. Prohibition does far more damage than addiction ever could.

There are always going to be people who claim stuff.

Imagine that we had a perfect government, one that was really out there to protect the people. So, they protect people, but the protected people don't get any experience thinking for themselves, because they are being sheltered by the government.

The best of good governments can't protect people against everything. Sooner or later some of the bad claims are going to get through. But because people have been protected by government for such a long time, they are really going to fall for the bad claims. Why? Because they think that government is still protecting them, and that the claims that they are hearing must be good claims.

But what if the government is lying and is really a bad government, sucking money and property off the people? Sure, the people will figure it out after a while. But by then many people will have been harmed.

Isn't it better that government make its claims, that the bad people make their claims, and then that the people make their own choices? This is the only way people will ever figure out which claims are the good ones.

On top of it all is the fact that some of the claims only work for certain people, and other claims don't. Why? Because people are different. Some people can drink a quart of rum without being affected much. Others get extremely sick on only a shot of rum. People are different and need to make up their own minds by their own experience.

Of course, if anybody doesn't like freedom, he can move to Communist China, and formally declare himself a citizen. They would love to dictate to you exactly what clothing you wear, how often you can smile (if ever), and multitudes of other things, including how many times you can have sex in a year.

Give the people freedom so that they can grow up through getting their own experience.

8)

That is an interesting split out by that website.

Thanks.

But I would argue, that if one was able to have a stat on "drug offense attorneys" it would almost entirely liberal leaning. Maybe for historical reasons.

I think that would be fair to put under 'trial attorneys'

But at the end of the day, both sides are making money on this and if you can't see this you're just avoiding the obvious.

Though I'm not sure about long-term effects and addiction risk, I would say mary jane is a saint compared to her cousin meth. I haven't heard of someone stoned on the green going around doing violent stuff, they are just chill. If there is one illegal drug that is prime candidate for decriminalization, it should be weed.

Who knows, it might even help with the opioid epidemic if we can get those people to use marijuana instead. I read that most people that got addicted to opioids started from them using it as painkiller and I believe marijuana is already being used for chronic pain so it might be a substitute.


Indeed, so many people on both sides make money arresting, fining and imprisoning people. I like the idea of the legality being the state's prerogative. States that don't want to have anything to do with it can ban it and the users/producers can just move elsewhere. Would also increase competition among states where it's legal to produce.

The plant kratom was showing quite effective for treating pain and helping people beat addition, especially opiate addiction. Of course the federal government immediately sought to schedule it in spite of its very mild psychoactive effects. Luckily push back from the general public prevented this. Funny how any useful medicinal plants are quickly regulated out of use of the general public.

We kinda already know why. Big Pharma. Herbal solutions like kratom and marijuana can be grown by anyone. Even if they require people to obtain a license to be a grower, it can still be a backyard industry. Not only would they cut into pharma's earnings, they are also cheaper to start as a business. I've seen a docu where they are just being grown in an abandoned building that has been converted into a greenhouse (well, not exactly green since there are few windows and use mostly artificial lighting).

Them being plants, pharmas would also have a harder time to block others from manufacturing products out of them. I still remember India fought (and won) for the neem patent to be removed. It's just easier to lobby the government to declare them illegal and prevent these herbal remedies from gaining widespread use.

A properly formed Private Membership Association (PMA) - one that discloses to members all the supposed dangers of a substance - falls outside the pervue of government enforcement. While it is true that a PMA can be faulty enough that public interests are harmed, a properly drawn up and administered PMA allows just about anything, as long as there is no harm being done, and as long as the members agree to it. Google and Youtube it.

8)

There is no point criminalizing an activity that have been known to be medicinal and its a multi-million dollar market if not more. So there is no need government is living in denial when they could take a portion of the large chunk. The only that is needed is to ensure that its being done within the right parameters and not turn into another public menace because people and especially the youths are known to abuse it to the detriment of every members of the society.

I have to disaggree. I think discriminalization ang legalization can be used interchangeably. Using marijuana is mala prohibita which means the use of it is not inherently illegal but because of a law criminalizing it, it became illegal. Now changing the law and discriminalizing the use of it can make it legal.  :) But of course the most important is to regulate who can use, on what purpose and how much dozage may use.