So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT

[Salty]

funny...they legalized automobiles and yet, Ford still sold the Pinto for years.

True. But then, growing cars has always provided a challenge.

whoops. Misread teh thread. And on my 50th post too.

[Messier Undertree]

Remember when left-wing types cared about things that actually mattered?

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

is aw good Alty.

you dont seem an epic douche, you should be fine, there are some that will yell "fuck you" just because the can, but hey, they're over 50 posts too...

[East Coast Hustle]

Remember when left-wing types cared about things that actually mattered?

actually, no.

[Cain]

Remember when left-wing types cared about things that actually mattered?

Um, no?

[fomenter]

Remember when left-wing types cared about things that actually mattered?

nope

[Messier Undertree]

Remember when left-wing types cared about things that actually mattered?

actually, no.

How do you feel about workers' rights? Child labour? The minimum wage? Trade unions?

Nothing? I guess it's just me then.

[Cain]

Presumably at one point they did, but for as long as I've been alive its all been about deconstructing the Satanic, bigoted roots of The Simpsons (and giving it a title with lots of words like "Resistance" and "Discourse" and "Hermeneutics" in it) and lamenting about how terribly uncouth the working classes are.

[East Coast Hustle]

Remember when left-wing types cared about things that actually mattered?

actually, no.

How do you feel about workers' rights? Child labour? The minimum wage? Trade unions?

Nothing? I guess it's just me then.

My bad.

I wasn't around to remember 1923.

[East Coast Hustle]

also...

How do you feel about workers' rights? Child labour? The minimum wage? Trade unions?

1. Overrated

2. I'm in favor of it

3. As long as it doesn't apply to exploitable illegals, I'm OK with it for now

4. Thank god they're around to save us from corruption and look out for our best interests. Oh, wait...

[Messier Undertree]

How do you feel about workers' rights? Child labour? The minimum wage? Trade unions?

1. Overrated

2. I'm in favor of it

3. As long as it doesn't apply to exploitable illegals, I'm OK with it for now

4. Thank god they're around to save us from corruption and look out for our best interests. Oh, wait...

How edgy.

[AFK]

Being doing a bit of interesting reading lately into drug journalism...

From the economist: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845095

Reformers are in a bold mood. Earlier this year a report by ex-presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico called for alternatives to prohibition. On November 12th a British think-tank, Transform, launched a report* setting out ideas on how drugs could be legally regulated. For every substance from cannabis to crack, it suggests a form of regulation, via doctors' prescriptions, pharmacy sales or consumption on licensed premises.

...

Elsewhere in the United States, there are many signs of prohibition ebbing away. Some 14 states have decriminalised the possession of marijuana for personal use (medical or otherwise), though most keep the option of a $100 civil penalty. Three states—New Mexico, Rhode Island and Massachusetts—license non-profit corporations to grow medical marijuana. Most radically, some states are considering legalising the drug completely. California and Massachusetts are holding committee hearings on bills to legalise pot outright; Oregon is expected to introduce such a bill within the next couple of weeks.

One reason for the sudden popularity of cannabis is financial. Tom Ammiano, the California assemblyman who introduced the bill to legalise marijuana earlier this year, points out that were it taxed it could raise some $1.3 billion a year for state coffers, based on a $50 per ounce levy on sales. As an added benefit to the public purse, lots of police time and prison space would be freed up. California's jails heave with 170,000 inmates, almost a fifth of them inside for drug-related crimes, albeit mostly worse than just possessing a spliff.

The problem with this argument is it is creating a false dichotomy.  That the only solution to current issues with law enforcement is to just legalize the drug.  But that isn't the solution.  The solution is to reform law enforcement policy.  Someone caught with a minor amount of marijuana should not go to jail, period.  Just keep jacking up the fee scale for each offense.  Now, when you catch a guy who is trafficking it and selling it, yeah, that guy probably should end up in the clink.  Especially if those drugs are reaching minors.  And the reality is that people like me are working with law enforcement to find creative ways to help people who need help without throwing them in jail.  That's why we have drug courts that work out a path to work on their drug problem that doesn't involve jail time.  There are even policies where a person can have the offense expunged from their record. 

So, having looked at this evidence, what do you think PD?
Isn't about time we fucking LEGALISED IT, ALL OF IT, and instead of THROWING GOOD PEOPLE IN JAIL WHO HAVE BAD DRUG PROBLEMS, we instead start helping them, and HELPING the economy at the same time?

Well, here in the U.S., particularly my state of Maine, we ARE helping them.  We've been helping them for years.  We don't throw a guy caught with a joint in jail for a bunch of years.  He has the option to pay a fine, or depending on if it is a repeat offense, he can go through the adult drug court system.  Anyone who wants help can get hooked up with help.  The solution isn't to legalize the drugs, which would increase the access to minors, the solution is to continue to working on enforcement policies and not throw people who need help into jail and to make sure they are all getting help in EVERY state. 

[fomenter]

Well, here in the U.S., particularly my state of Maine, we ARE helping them.  We've been helping them for years.  We don't throw a guy caught with a joint in jail for a bunch of years.  He has the option to pay a fine,

why does a guy with a joint need to pay a fine?

or depending on if it is a repeat offense, he can go through the adult drug court system.  Anyone who wants help can get hooked up with help.  The solution isn't to legalize the drugs, which would increase the access to minors, the solution is to continue to working on enforcement policies and not throw people who need help

why does a guy with a joint need help?

into jail and to make sure they are all getting help in EVERY state. 

much respect for the work you do rwhn and no disagreement with regards to kids on drugs, but a grown man is not a criminal unless the gov makes him one or he harms others, and he doesn't need help unless his actions are harming himself

[AFK]

Well, here in the U.S., particularly my state of Maine, we ARE helping them.  We've been helping them for years.  We don't throw a guy caught with a joint in jail for a bunch of years.  He has the option to pay a fine,

why does a guy with a joint need to pay a fine?

Because it is illegal.  That said I would be open to decriminalizing the possession of a small amount of marijuana.  Enough for personal use.  But if it is a distributable amount, no dice.  

or depending on if it is a repeat offense, he can go through the adult drug court system.  Anyone who wants help can get hooked up with help.  The solution isn't to legalize the drugs, which would increase the access to minors, the solution is to continue to working on enforcement policies and not throw people who need help

why does a guy with a joint need help?

He may, he may not.  It wouldn't be a bad idea for him, or her, to have an assessment however.  And that can be a pretty quick and painless process.  If no drug issue is identified, then they shouldn't be required to get help.  I would refer back to my earlier bit.  If the amount is for personal use only, then let the person off.  If it is a distributable amount, then fines should be in place.  

much respect for the work you do rwhn and no disagreement with regards to kids on drugs, but a grown man is not a criminal unless the gov makes him one or he harms others, and he doesn't need help unless his actions are harming himself

Well, I don't look at it that way.  I would look at it the same way that someone who does 85 in a 65 is not a criminal, per se.  But it is a behavior that could have detrimental effects to others in society, like if I crash into someone going 85, or the guy with just one or two joints starts sharing with minors.  And trust me, minors ARE getting their pot from adults, adults they know.  In fact it is far less likely they will get their marijuana from some stranger on the corner these days.  It's about prevention.  

[fomenter]

we seem to be basically in agreement then,

i wouldn't require a guy to get an assessment

if he is selling (w/o a license or paying tax) or selling to kids busting him is fair

i don't think the amount of access kids have would increase, if they want to they can score any time any where already, hard to make it worse than it is, there will always be some dumb grownups who sell to kids just like with alcohol and they can and should be busted just like with alcohol..

i think the highway comparison doesn't work well, rules of the road and laws about what you can and cant do with drugs are different than making drugs or driving illegal.... the drug laws we have would be more like saying it is illegal to drive a car because you might speed.

i have no problem with laws about what you can and cant do with drugs or under there influence (driving under the influence of selling to kids etc ) or strict penalty's for breaking them...