| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:10 pm Post subject: Obama administration issues new marijuana policy |
 |
|
Source
Looks like it's time to see mises say something positive about the Obama administration again.
| Quote: |
The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.
The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.
Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is pretty exciting.
Oh, and it seems the Democrats are more properly Federalist than the Republicans on this matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Great Wall of Whiner
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Middle Land
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
And? You favour drug comapnies that makes billions of dollars on glucoma and cancer drugs over a naturally growing weed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Great Wall of Whiner wrote: |
And? You favour drug comapnies that makes billions of dollars on glucoma and cancer drugs over a naturally growing weed? |
What? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The Great Wall of Whiner wrote: |
And? You favour drug comapnies that makes billions of dollars on glucoma and cancer drugs over a naturally growing weed? |
What? |
*Scratches head* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The Great Wall of Whiner wrote: |
And? You favour drug comapnies that makes billions of dollars on glucoma and cancer drugs over a naturally growing weed? |
What? |
Prohibitionists often point out that medical cannabis is de facto legalization as though this were a bad thing. He probably either wasn't aware of your libertarian leanings or else he figured you were a follower of those sort of libertarian Republicans who push for smaller government to protect their corporate buddies while supporting prohibition to make the religious right happy.
This is a good start, but the real game will go down as soon as one of the states passes a "legalize and tax it" bill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| or else he figured you were a follower of those sort of libertarian Republicans who push for smaller government to protect their corporate buddies while supporting prohibition to make the religious right happy. |
Yet another person on here who likes to throw around terms he doesn't understand... What "libertarian" Republicans are you talking about? Ron Paul? Most other Republicans are NOT libertarians - quite the opposite in fact (regardless of the empty rhetoric they may use to get themselves elected).
Moreover, nobody protects their "corporate buddies" more than the government. That's an indisputable fact, and just plain common sense. The government is corrupt to the core and without its support none of the various fascist-socialist cartels could exist (ie. the Federal Reserve banking cartel, the FDA run food and drug cartels, the insurance industry cartel, the military industrial complex etc.). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| or else he figured you were a follower of those sort of libertarian Republicans who push for smaller government to protect their corporate buddies while supporting prohibition to make the religious right happy. |
Yet another person on here who likes to throw around terms he doesn't understand... What "libertarian" Republicans are you talking about? Ron Paul? Most other Republicans are NOT libertarians - quite the opposite in fact (regardless of the empty rhetoric they may use to get themselves elected).
Moreover, nobody protects their "corporate buddies" more than the government. That's an indisputable fact, and just plain common sense. The government is corrupt to the core and without its support none of the various fascist-socialist cartels could exist (ie. the Federal Reserve banking cartel, the FDA run food and drug cartels, the insurance industry cartel, the military industrial complex etc.). |
I'm not actually disagreeing with you. I said "sort of libertarian Republicans" because while they claim to be for "small government," this stance is typically applied in a selective and dubious way, and if you look at the context of my use of this term, you can tell I was presenting actual libertarians in a favorable light while condemning "small government" favoring Republicans so as to offer an explanation for why some folks (like the guy who responded to Mises) might confuse the two on this issue.
EDIT: Although I would disagree with you that a lack of government regulation doesn't support corporate corruption just as much as crooked government intervention does, I doubt we can resolve that debate once and for all in an ESL forum thread on medical marijuana policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| or else he figured you were a follower of those sort of libertarian Republicans who push for smaller government to protect their corporate buddies while supporting prohibition to make the religious right happy. |
Yet another person on here who likes to throw around terms he doesn't understand... What "libertarian" Republicans are you talking about? Ron Paul? Most other Republicans are NOT libertarians - quite the opposite in fact (regardless of the empty rhetoric they may use to get themselves elected).
Moreover, nobody protects their "corporate buddies" more than the government. That's an indisputable fact, and just plain common sense. The government is corrupt to the core and without its support none of the various fascist-socialist cartels could exist (ie. the Federal Reserve banking cartel, the FDA run food and drug cartels, the insurance industry cartel, the military industrial complex etc.). |
I'm not actually disagreeing with you. I said "sort of libertarian Republicans" because while they claim to be for "small government," this stance is typically applied in a selective and dubious way, and if you look at the context of my use of this term, you can tell I was presenting actual libertarians in a favorable light while condemning "small government" favoring Republicans so as to offer an explanation for why some folks (like the guy who responded to Mises) might confuse the two on this issue. |
Ok, if that's the case (if you meant it ironically), I guess we can agree after all.
| Quote: |
| EDIT: Although I would disagree with you that a lack of government regulation doesn't support corporate corruption just as much as crooked government intervention does, I doubt we can resolve that debate once and for all in an ESL forum thread on medical marijuana policy. |
Yeah, it's probably a debate beyond the scope of this particular thread... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm against the legalization of medical marijuana, because I think it's a Trojan Horse to legitimize regular prohibition. If alcohol prohibition had been "ended" by allowing sick people to buy liquor with a doctor's prescription, would we have considered that a victory for the right to drink alcohol?
Thomas Szasz sums it up better than I ever could...
| Quote: |
Prohibition, let us recall, was also a federal law. Anti-Prohibitionists did not try to circumvent it with phony claims about states' rights and vacuous arguments about "medical necessity." (Countless cancer patients who "need" opiates are denied the drug.) Prohibition was repealed because, in the end, Americans were ready to reclaim their fundamental right to drink liquor, a right that, in principle, does not differ from the right to drink milk (which may be more harmful for adults than alcohol).
Either we have the right to poison and kill ourselves with food, alcohol, and drugs, or we don't. For nearly half a century I have opposed drug prohibition and the increasing power of the therapeutic state. I am not arguing for marijuana prohibition. I am arguing for individual liberty, personal responsibility, and the rule of law. The way to deal with bad laws is by repealing them, not by multiplying them.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
I'm against the legalization of medical marijuana, because I think it's a Trojan Horse to legitimize regular prohibition. If alcohol prohibition had been "ended" by allowing sick people to buy liquor with a doctor's prescription, would we have considered that a victory for the right to drink alcohol?
Thomas Szasz sums it up better than I ever could...
| Quote: |
Prohibition, let us recall, was also a federal law. Anti-Prohibitionists did not try to circumvent it with phony claims about states' rights and vacuous arguments about "medical necessity." (Countless cancer patients who "need" opiates are denied the drug.) Prohibition was repealed because, in the end, Americans were ready to reclaim their fundamental right to drink liquor, a right that, in principle, does not differ from the right to drink milk (which may be more harmful for adults than alcohol).
Either we have the right to poison and kill ourselves with food, alcohol, and drugs, or we don't. For nearly half a century I have opposed drug prohibition and the increasing power of the therapeutic state. I am not arguing for marijuana prohibition. I am arguing for individual liberty, personal responsibility, and the rule of law. The way to deal with bad laws is by repealing them, not by multiplying them.
|
|
TZ is the cats ass.
I agree with you in principle OTOH. The problem is that the government propaganda has been so effective. The society (ours or theirs) can't conceive of a situation where you can buy blow at Shoppers. This (medical weed) might be about as good as it is going to get for a long time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buildbyflying
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: To your right. No, your other right.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
some good points.
Medical marijuana is the reach around needed to get other states on board. If Cali can profit form the heavy taxes (with dispensaries eager to pay) then it's logical that other states would follow suit. Eventually the last state in will be staring down their constituents who are asking why the state's still raising taxes when other states have made a profit.
Straight up legalization is a pipe dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Last time legalization was on the ballot in Cali the union representing prision guards along with alcohol interests dumped big money into a "No on prop xyz" campaign. Lots of money in prohibition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
