florduh
Well-Known Member
The bill was introduced a year ago. 5 Republicans have signed onto the Republican Bill. 24 Democrats have. This provides further proof that one Party is better than the other on Legalization.
And this is a REPUBLICAN bill.
Crackdown on Legalized Marijuana
- Thread starter Deleted Member 1643
- Start date
The bill was introduced a year ago. 5 Republicans have signed onto the Republican Bill. 24 Democrats have. This provides further proof that one Party is better than the other on Legalization.
And this is a REPUBLICAN bill.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
It's opposite day at FC.
A guy proposes a bill that might actually pass so we must conclude the other party is better on Legalization.
How about we see what happens rather than project our bias on events?
For why it matters, imagine the following facts to be true (Without discussion on depth of feelings and as to if they might give up on our goal for a higher priority goal when asked by the party.):
68.27% of Democrats support legalization
35% of Republicans support legalization
If those made up facts are true, accept the reality that if you make it about party then you can only win during the time that party is in power. Not only that, but, you can convince 31% more Democrats cannabis should be legalized and the political results are exactly zero. Get 16% more Republicans? Then you have a majority of both parties supporting the same thing.
That's how you win. Thinking of party keeps the issue going as long as there are two parties.
florduh
Well-Known Member
I'm not talking about made up facts. I'm talking about actual facts. A Republican proposed this bill a year ago. It has 5 Republican sponsors. And 24 Democrat sponsors. Even when a Republican proposes a legalization bill, Democrats are 5 times more likely to support it.
If legalization is the goal, it seems like voting in the Party that is 5 times more likely to vote for legalization would be a good move. The majority of Americans already support legalization. We just need to vote in people who will enact the will of the People into law.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Peace and Freedom and the Libertarian party is the way to go if you actually want people who deeply believe in legalization as a core issue rather than as a wedge issue.
florduh
Well-Known Member
If the Libertarian Party had a chance of being elected, sure. But the reality is, one of the two major Parties is going to win 95%+ of elections. Given that, supporting the major Party that is most likely to vote for legalization seems smart. All available evidence points to the Dems being that Party.
And you don't get to dismiss that evidence by claiming "partisanship". Noticing reality isn't partisan. If the GOP would actually stand for their personal freedom principles and voted for legalization more than the Dems, I'd be saying the opposite. That isn't the reality we live in though.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
That's where your problem is, thinking the Democrats will start winning elections without loss. The pendelum swings back and forth. Both parties will be in power. Once you start looking at that, you realize focusing on Democrats does not help you win. (Which is your purported goal by dismissing those who actually believe in freedom on the cannabis issue because they won't usually win.)
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I absolutely think that legalization HAS TO BE A BI-PARTISAN GOAL.
Lets break it down into bite sized peices:
- Some folks are just going to vote along party lines. (Partisanship)
- Some folks are going to weigh each candidate's or party's stance on the issues and vote accordingly. (How many people are going to view legalization as more important than abortion, fiscal conservatism, immigration, health care....etc.)
The above just points to slower adoption. I for one am not going to vote for one party over another just because the percentage chance of getting MJ legalized is higher. I have more pressing concerns.
We need to make sure that both parties understand that the majority has spoken and that the majority of republicans and democrats want legalization. We cannot afford to allow legalization to be viewed as one party's cause. I know plenty of republicans and democrats who want cannabis legalized but I don't know any who view it to be more important than the battle lines drawn around issues like women's rights and health care.
Lets break it down into bite sized peices:
- Some folks are just going to vote along party lines. (Partisanship)
- Some folks are going to weigh each candidate's or party's stance on the issues and vote accordingly. (How many people are going to view legalization as more important than abortion, fiscal conservatism, immigration, health care....etc.)
The above just points to slower adoption. I for one am not going to vote for one party over another just because the percentage chance of getting MJ legalized is higher. I have more pressing concerns.
We need to make sure that both parties understand that the majority has spoken and that the majority of republicans and democrats want legalization. We cannot afford to allow legalization to be viewed as one party's cause. I know plenty of republicans and democrats who want cannabis legalized but I don't know any who view it to be more important than the battle lines drawn around issues like women's rights and health care.
florduh
Well-Known Member
That's nonsense. We just need it to be legalized Federally. Once that happens, there is a near-zero chance that conservatives would move to bring prohibition BACK. There isn't the political will for that.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing. The Libertarian Party will never have a majority in Congress or the Senate. Given that, I'd choose to vote for the Party that has a better voting record on Cannabis: The Dems.
Focusing on the Party that disproportionately supports every legalization bill absolutely helps you win.
But by all means, simply research your candidates before you vote. Check their voting records and stance on marijuana.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
“Someone has got to break the logjam. The fact is that you have the incarceration rate, particularly in African American communities for drug related crimes is off the charts... The old mindset that doesn't address the current environment, that doesn't deal with realities of our penal system or our sentencing system... A lot of folks are getting caught in the cross-hairs... We've got to reorient our priorities here when it comes to the issue of drugs in our culture.”
Michael SteeleFormer Chairman of Republican National Committee
florduh
Well-Known Member
The majority of ALL Americans support legalization. But only a minority of Republican Voters (43%) support legalization. This may help explain why Republican politicians are less likely to support legalization. Being anti-cannabis doesn't hurt them with their base.
Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/05/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/
Cool. I don't care about what un-elected Republicans have to say on the matter though. I care about how elected officials vote. Republicans just don't vote for legalization measures at the same rate as Dems, and tend to kill even Republican sponsored bills in Committee. And Steele has no place in the modern GOP. He hates Trump and the direction his Party has gone.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
You certainly like to filter facts through a lens. This fact is good and that fact is bad is fine, but you need to explain why you distinguish the facts.
By your theory, Compton would have legal weed sales. They don't.
The city of:
Hasn't had a Republican Mayor, State Senator, State Representative or Federal Representative since the '60s. (I can't easily find political party for council members as they are "non-partisan" so can't get the history.) Look at the demographics of this left city in the left state of California.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton,_California
These are Democrats. Have been, will be; Democrats. There is a shift going on politically right now there between the majority demographic of Hispanic and the minority demographic of black as to who will represent the people. The difference is not between Democrats or Republicans, but between Democrats who are Hispanic and Democrats who are black.
In their special election on if retail sales of cannabis will be allowed in their fine city, the vote was "no". (At http://www.comptoncity.org/officials/clerk/elections/electionsarc.asp , hit the "Tally sheet" link on the special municipal election in 2018 to generate the sheet for Measures I and C.) It wasn't even close.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-compton-pot-20180124-story.html
The city's proposal, known as Measure C, would have allowed marijuana sales while imposing a 10% business tax and banning commercial cultivation of marijuana. It was rejected 76% to 23%. The competing initiative, Measure I, included many of the same provisions as Measure C, but called for a 5% business tax and would have allowed indoor marijuana-cultivation businesses. It was rejected 77% to 23%.
The defeat of both measures means the city's existing ban on marijuana businesses will remain in place.
The defeat of both measures means the city's existing ban on marijuana businesses will remain in place.
florduh
Well-Known Member
Yeah I'm pretty sure that's you. I'm simply pointing out the simple fact that Dems are more likely to support legalization bills in Congress, even when they are proposed by a Republican. That isn't filtering facts. Those are just the plain facts. When I present those simple facts, you respond with non-sequiturs and obfuscation.
I've asked you several times to prove me wrong. Find me a Federal Legalization bill that has more Republican supporters than Dems. You seem unable to.
And who cares about Compton. No one in California is being arrested for possession any longer. You can thank Dems for that too. A Compton resident can find many dispensaries to buy from within a 20 minute drive.
Little Bill
Oldest stoner on FC
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
What "BS"?
Which fact have I put out there that you don't like? Which interpretation of the facts put out there do you not agree with?
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
You click on the User and then Ignore and life goes on. 
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
I've proven multiple assertions you've made to be incorrect. Do we need to go through them again? As to the rest, it becomes clear that no matter how many times I explain things to you you seem to want to miss the point.
This is a perfect example of fact filtering. You say Democrats are awesome on cannabis, I show a huge majority of Democrats in a huge majority of Democrat area ACTUALLY ACTS in a way different from your claim. The response, "who cares"? Again, should we default to your claim or to our own lying eyes?
It's a pity so many of those dispensaries are, technically, illegal and the owners take a risk if they rely on the good faith of the Democrats in charge in the state.
florduh
Well-Known Member
LOL My assertion is that Dems are more likely to vote for legalization measures than Republicans. You’ve done nothing to disprove that because it’s an objective fact.
Your Compton deflection is a non -sequitur and obfuscation at its finest. Weed is legal in California and Compton residents have access to it.
But if you want to look at which cities allow Cannabis dispensaries and which don’t, and then compare which Party is in charge of those City councils... we can.
I doubt the Republicans would come out ahead in that comparison.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Sheesh. No one has disputed more Democrats will say they support cannabis than Republicans. So what? I got a guy who lost everything because he believed that lie.
We can get every other person who is a Democrat on the cannabis train and NOTHING changes. We need to reach Republicans. As soon as you associate cannabis legalization with Democrats, a Republican is going to filter if he would prefer hooting the hookah or having an extra few thousand a year to spend in his pocket rather than thinking he can have both.
If your entire point of writing all this has been "Polls indicate Democrats are more likely to support cannabis legalization than Republicans", than I agree with you. That does not get us to legalization EVER. At least not in a sustainable way. For that, the old phrase is "Only Nixon can go to China". It wasn't the party in favor of opening relations with China that opened it up, it was the party that was inherently suspicious of it. Once you get them, you win.
Weed is not "legal in California". Period. I am uncertain how your bare claim of deflection or obfuscation is anything but an attempt to not address a specifically adverse fact to your claim on how awesome Democrats act as opposed to how they say they will act. (Or, how you say they will act.)
Such imprecision. Probably why I have to keep saying the same things again and again. When you say "Cannabis dispensaries", do you mean medical or recreational? If recreational, do we mean properly approved by the underlying jurisdiction? If medical, is it legal if there is no local approval? When you say "in charge", do you mean a majority or the mayor? Should we count the number of cities that specifically denied sales and assess those as well? (Maybe compare the number that allow for recreational sales controlled by a party and subtract the cities that prevent sales.) If a city allows some sales, but not others (Like delivery), is that in the plus column for legalization, a minus, or a wash?
Do we get to look at the political composition of the person who voted or the underlying population he serves? As to that population issue, is it relevant, or no, the overall makeup? If 60% (Or, whatever.) of the state is Democratic, would we expect 60% of the cities to approve local recreational sales? Is it just going to be a plus or minus criteria or will we make it a ratio to the number in the population of the city?
If you give me fair criteria, I'll take the challenge.
It will take some work, though. That is not easy data to come by.
Edit:
We might use this data once we get the criteria.
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/...re-our-database-of-local-cannabis-policies-2/
Edit, edit:
We might use this for unincorporated areas.
http://cannabusinesslaw.com/california-cannabis-laws-by-county/
Last edited:
florduh
Well-Known Member
More obfuscation. My point is that Democrats sign onto more legislation supporting legalization than the other Party. Do you accept this objective fact, or not?
Given this objective fact, it makes more sense to support Dems over Republicans if legalization is your goal. That's my point. We just need enough "yes" votes to end Federal prohibition.
If you want to support Republicans despite their being worse on legalization (in terms of supporting legalization legislation), go for it. Just be honest about it.
As for your Compton non-sequitur, you moved goalposts. The city council is deciding on allowing dispensaries. That is a separate issue from ending prohibition. Moving goalposts to make your point is dishonest. At best, you can say Dems are imperfect. I would agree with that. In Congress, they are still 5 times more likely to support legalization measures. And Compton residents still have access to legal weed. (It is legal according to State Law, and the Feds aren't arresting anyone for simple possession).
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
@florduh and @OldNewbie - if I were to try and get to the heart of the debate could the disagreement be as simple as:
- More Dems are for legalization than Repubs
- If Trump hadn't won J. Sessions would not have been given the AG role
- More Dems are for legalization than Repubs
- If Trump hadn't won J. Sessions would not have been given the AG role
florduh
Well-Known Member
That summarizes my points exactly.
I don't think the Dems are perfect on the cannabis issue. Or any other. But they are objectively better than the alternative if legalization is your goal.
There are pro-cannabis Republican Senators and Congressmen. That doesn't change the fact that when they propose legalization measures, they are largely supported by Dems.
And yes, prior to the election, we knew Trump would nominate a rabid prohibitionist to the AG spot.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
I agree they say they support cannabis issues more than Republicans.
Nope. See (Repeatedly, and ad naseum) supra.
I am truly debating as to if you are missing the point intentionally or not. I don't really care if they "support" anything. I want to see what they do. So far, I've been disappointed. If there is no political cost, they are on our side. If there is political cost, they'll trade us for plastic straws.
Talk about non-sequitur, my goodness. You are wrong on Compton and knowing what it means. You are disingenuous to claim I moved the goalposts when you are all over the map on each topic. Also, you are wrong on what "legal" means. Also, you are wrong the Feds aren't arresting for simple possession. ( https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/...ublications/2016/201609_Simple-Possession.pdf )
florduh
Well-Known Member
@OldNewbie I've made my simple points, over and over again. @His_Highness summarized them perfectly. Why aren't you getting it?
Every time your response is to throw irrelevant bullshit at the wall, hoping it sticks.
For example, what does Compton not wanting dispensaries have to do with Republicans not supporting their colleagues' legalization efforts in Congress? Nothing. You are bringing up zoning law discussions. That has nothing to do with Federal Legalization efforts: Non-Sequitur. And you absolutely moved goalposts. I've never argued that Dems are perfect on this issue. Just that they are more likely to support legalization bills in Congress.
I'm not looking at Democrats' statements. I'm looking at the legislation they support. Democrats vote for legalization measures more than Republicans.
Every time your response is to throw irrelevant bullshit at the wall, hoping it sticks.
For example, what does Compton not wanting dispensaries have to do with Republicans not supporting their colleagues' legalization efforts in Congress? Nothing. You are bringing up zoning law discussions. That has nothing to do with Federal Legalization efforts: Non-Sequitur. And you absolutely moved goalposts. I've never argued that Dems are perfect on this issue. Just that they are more likely to support legalization bills in Congress.
I'm not looking at Democrats' statements. I'm looking at the legislation they support. Democrats vote for legalization measures more than Republicans.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
This is Fox News speaking!
5 days ago
Stop Sessions' anti-pot crusade -- Let states regulate marijuana
By Bob Barr | Fox News
Justice Department targets recreational marijuana
Attorney General Sessions is taking aim at the industry.
What does marijuana have in common with Schedule I controlled substances like heroin, LSD, and “date-rape” drugs? “Nothing,” the average American would likely reply. I agree. Unfortunately, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions holds the opposite view and continues to lump pot in with far more dangerous drugs.
It appears that Sessions is using federal law enforcement to further his personal view that all marijuana use is wrong. This is the same mindset behind the prohibition of alcoholic beverages in the U.S. from 1920 to1933. That proved unsustainable, just as the total federal ban on marijuana has been shown to be a failure.
Since President Nixon launched the War on Drugs more than four decades ago, billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent each year fighting the perceived scourge of marijuana, employing the same fundamental strategy decade after decade. And year after year, Americans continue to smoke marijuana in increasing numbers, according to the government’s own figures.
Common sense tells us that not all illegal drugs are alike. Heroin is far more dangerous and addictive than marijuana. LSD is powerful hallucinogen that is far more incapacitating than pot. And anyone using a drug to leave a woman helpless so he can rape her is committing a terrible crime far more serious than smoking a joint.
Moreover, Americans generally are aware that numerous medical studies have established that THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the primary active ingredient in marijuana, possesses significant positive properties for certain maladies, including glaucoma, cancers, seizures and post-traumatic stress disorder. Even many people who oppose recreational marijuana use don’t want to deny the drug to sick people who could benefit from it medically.
Yet Sessions remains an adamant foe of all marijuana use. Full disclosure: I held the same view when I was a U.S. attorney in Georgia from 1986 to 1990 and when I served as a Republican congressman from Georgia from 1995 to 2003. But as more evidence emerged about marijuana in the past 15 years I reevaluated my position. I now believe states should determine how they want to regulate marijuana, without federal interference.
Sessions continues to maintain that marijuana is a “dangerous drug” that the federal government must “combat,” regardless of whether a state’s citizens have voted to legalize it.
5 days ago
Stop Sessions' anti-pot crusade -- Let states regulate marijuana
By Bob Barr | Fox News
Justice Department targets recreational marijuana
Attorney General Sessions is taking aim at the industry.
What does marijuana have in common with Schedule I controlled substances like heroin, LSD, and “date-rape” drugs? “Nothing,” the average American would likely reply. I agree. Unfortunately, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions holds the opposite view and continues to lump pot in with far more dangerous drugs.
It appears that Sessions is using federal law enforcement to further his personal view that all marijuana use is wrong. This is the same mindset behind the prohibition of alcoholic beverages in the U.S. from 1920 to1933. That proved unsustainable, just as the total federal ban on marijuana has been shown to be a failure.
Since President Nixon launched the War on Drugs more than four decades ago, billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent each year fighting the perceived scourge of marijuana, employing the same fundamental strategy decade after decade. And year after year, Americans continue to smoke marijuana in increasing numbers, according to the government’s own figures.
Common sense tells us that not all illegal drugs are alike. Heroin is far more dangerous and addictive than marijuana. LSD is powerful hallucinogen that is far more incapacitating than pot. And anyone using a drug to leave a woman helpless so he can rape her is committing a terrible crime far more serious than smoking a joint.
Moreover, Americans generally are aware that numerous medical studies have established that THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the primary active ingredient in marijuana, possesses significant positive properties for certain maladies, including glaucoma, cancers, seizures and post-traumatic stress disorder. Even many people who oppose recreational marijuana use don’t want to deny the drug to sick people who could benefit from it medically.
Yet Sessions remains an adamant foe of all marijuana use. Full disclosure: I held the same view when I was a U.S. attorney in Georgia from 1986 to 1990 and when I served as a Republican congressman from Georgia from 1995 to 2003. But as more evidence emerged about marijuana in the past 15 years I reevaluated my position. I now believe states should determine how they want to regulate marijuana, without federal interference.
Sessions continues to maintain that marijuana is a “dangerous drug” that the federal government must “combat,” regardless of whether a state’s citizens have voted to legalize it.
Last edited:
Gigsabits53
Well-Known Member
I currently live in an illegal state and have recently lost my weed connection. I have not had any since 1/5 of this year. I'm an old timer that does not run in circles of people who smoke pot. Right now, and for the last 2+ months, I have no access to pot. It's more than a bit irritating. I rarely come on this forum anymore because it brings me down. I have really had enough of this ridiculousness! I am being oppressed by my government every single day. Land of the free my ass!