50 replies to this topic

[ElBastardoVerde]

This has been quite a controversy, and has sparked some very hot debates in a few of my classes. How do you feel?

[artificial]

Referendum.

[NapisaurusRex]

Yes. I think that the state's law should supersede federal law except in cases where federal law has the power. Federal laws aren't supposed to have anything to do with drugs.

[artificial]

Yes. I think that the state's law should supersede federal law except in cases where federal law has the power. Federal laws aren't supposed to have anything to do with drugs.

Lol what? State law superseding federal law would produce anarchy!

[ElBastardoVerde]

I feel the same way, Napi. I have a feeling that they are going to find a way to shoot down both ideas in Colorado and Washington, because, well, that's just what the government does.

And yes Ping, in a more perfect America a referendum would work, but most of our people don't even know the Bill of Rights. And I don't think state law superseding federal law would cause anarchy. :b

[Mishelle]

I believe state law already supercedes federal law unless the power is granted to the federal government through the constitution. I think its a good thing but I don't believe it should apply in cases of human rights because some states lag behind in that area. I also think the federal government should take weed off the schedule 1 drug list because putting it in the same group as drugs like heroin is insulting to people's intelligence.

Edited by Mishelle, 13 November 2012 - 04:31 PM.

[ElBastardoVerde]

I believe state law already supercedes federal law unless the power is granted to the federal government through the constitution. I think its a good thing but I don't believe it should apply in cases of human rights because some states lag behind in that area. I also think the federal government should take weed off the schedule 1 drug list because putting it in the same group as drugs like heroin is insulting to people's intelligence.

I'm glad you brought up the Schedule I drug argument. It is ridiculous that pot is Schedule I and cocaine is Schedule II. Whose stupid fucking idea was that, anyways? Pot and heroin aren't even comparable, but I guess the government views it differently.

[Nanarie]

How about the federal government legalizes weed too so we don't have this problem (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧ *:･ﾟ✧*

[BellaBleu]

Too bad, the bible belt will erupt if we attempt to legalize it at the federal level even though legalization is the best way to go forward ;(

[Yung]

How about the federal government legalizes weed too so we don't have this problem (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧ *:･ﾟ✧*

As has already been pointed out in this thread if the federal government did it would still boil down to the individual states decision on whether or not it should be legalized.

[NapisaurusRex]

Lol what? State law superseding federal law would produce anarchy!

No. If that was the way it would work, then the Constitution wouldn't have been set up to support this train of thought.

I believe state law already supercedes federal law unless the power is granted to the federal government through the constitution.

See?

[tri]

Yes because of price. I believe it is a cheaper solution to many other pain relievers such as Morphine, Oxycodone etc. It can also substitute medication other than pain killers. Now basically I am only saying yes to legalize it for medical uses not like you can get it from a convenience store like cigarettes or smoke it anywhere you want.

[Yung]

Using the basis that it is cheaper at street value as a substitute for street value prescriptions is without a doubt the worst supporting argument ever in the history of Why They Should Legalize Weed debates.

*slow claps*

[Nanarie]

As has already been pointed out in this thread if the federal government did it would still boil down to the individual states decision on whether or not it should be legalized.

I know, I took US History and have at least a vague idea of the interaction between federal and state. I just wanted to throw in some sparkles to this discussion.

[NapisaurusRex]

Using the basis that it is cheaper at street value as a substitute for street value prescriptions is without a doubt the worst supporting argument ever in the history of Why They Should Legalize Weed debates.

*slow claps*

Whatever. Obamacare went through. This is a legit reason and probably the only reason I support legalization. Although it'll probably go up if it was.

[tri]

Using the basis that it is cheaper at street value as a substitute for street value prescriptions is without a doubt the worst supporting argument ever in the history of Why They Should Legalize Weed debates.

*slow claps*

I mean medical like you go to the pharmacy and you get it. I know the prices in pharmacy and for around 20 seeds of the plant it $20 and pain pills are way more then that and the plant will last way longer.

Whatever. Obamacare went through. This is a legit reason and probably the only reason I support legalization. Although it'll probably go up if it was.

Ya as soon as the drug companies get a hold of it and put it in pill it will probably be a lot more so hopefully it will always be grow in your home sort of thing.

Edited by Tristen, 13 November 2012 - 07:06 PM.

[Yung]

I mean medical like you go to the pharmacy and you get it. I know the prices in pharmacy and for around 20 seeds of the plant it $20 and pain pills are way more then that and the plant will last way longer.

Look point being if you're really wanting to shift the focus of debate from whether or not the State governments should have jurisdiction over the legalization or if the federal government should then that's fine. All I am saying is the focusing on the fact that it's a cheaper alternative as a pain killer is a poor argument to try and build a case from.

If you're dedicated to debating why it should be legalized then you should focus your argument around the basis of taxation and the benefits to paying off both state and national debts through the taxation of marijuana and the restitution of rectifying laws to coincide that of tobacco laws.

[tri]

Look point being if you're really wanting to shift the focus of debate from whether or not the State governments should have jurisdiction over the legalization or if the federal government should then that's fine. All I am saying is the focusing on the fact that it's a cheaper alternative as a pain killer is a poor argument to try and build a case from.

If you're dedicated to debating why it should be legalized then you should focus your argument around the basis of taxation and the benefits to paying off both state and national debts through the taxation of marijuana and the restitution of rectifying laws to coincide that of tobacco laws.

Well I said yes an I gave a reason. It is fine if you do not agree with me but if you look in people in a situation like example cancer have 10 pills paying $500/week for them when you can get marijuana for $20 and last for way longer for obviously a cheaper price and it will probably substitute a couple of those 10 pills. Also sorry if I understood the question wrong but I thought it would be like legalizing marijuana in states which want it.

[Scot]

Radio buttons fail

[Mishelle]

Whatever. Obamacare went through. This is a legit reason and probably the only reason I support legalization. Although it'll probably go up if it was.

It would go down. Up in LA there's a medical marijuana spot on every corner like a Starbucks because they don't raid clinics. There you can get it for way cheaper than down here because they all tend to be clustered together so there's a lot of competition. Where I currently live a lot of clinics get raided and shut down by the police so there's less competition and prices go up. Clinics here charge double what I can get it for in LA. And I think you could probably get it even cheaper in the Bay Area where they've built their own little mini Amsterdam.

Edited by Mishelle, 13 November 2012 - 08:32 PM.

[NapisaurusRex]

It would go down. Up in LA there's a medical marijuana spot on every corner like a Starbucks because they don't raid clinics. There you can get it for way cheaper than down here because they all tend to be clustered together so there's a lot of competition. Where I currently live a lot of clinics get raided and shut down by the police so there's less competition and prices go up. Clinics here charge double what I can get it for in LA. And I think you could probably get it even cheaper in the Bay Area where they've built their own little mini Amsterdam.

It kinda sounds like it might be a location thing too. It's almost 3x as much out here in BFE than it was where I used to live, with all the interstates intersecting nicely. I've never lived in a place where it's legalish though.

[artificial]

I thought there was a federal crackdown on medicinal marijuana dispensaries in CA.

[ElBastardoVerde]

I thought there was a federal crackdown on medicinal marijuana dispensaries in CA.

I think it depends on the area, but yes, the DEA has been known to raid several stores in one day.

[Mishelle]

I thought there was a federal crackdown on medicinal marijuana dispensaries in CA.

Not where I'm from. They're everywhere. And if they do get raided they'll just open another one up somewhere else in a week or so.

[Chappy]

I thought there was a federal crackdown on medicinal marijuana dispensaries in CA.

I believe it was on new dispensaries in CA. Since I believe there were so many they decided at after a certain year you have to either close down or something liek that.