Washington State
- Thread starter SnohomishRed
- Start date
The Governor was always against legalizing marijuana. He hasn't changed his position, he's just still against it. From what I understand reading quotes from him, he has more of an issue with the regulation part of it as there is no precedent to follow. Since it is still illegal with the federal government, he gets no help from the federal government. Also he sees a opportunity for corruption since banks don't deal with pot money. That is a valid concern. Having an all cash industry does lead to big opportunities for corruption.
One other side affect legalizing has done is hurt the drug cartels. They've taken a big hit as black markets have been hurt. Another side affect in these states is less people going to jail for minor drug charges. Both of those will help save the government money in the long run. Less money needed to pay for people going to jail and less smuggling drugs into their states.
I have read articles that fly in the face of that opinion. Crime down, revenue up, money for schools, increased property values. I'm sure both sides are focusing on the extreme and not the norm when trying to prove their side, but it looks like a win so far.
I'd like to see those articles as I live here. Pot has nothing to do with increased property values. Demand for houses does. The values haven't gone up because a bunch of Stoners are moving here. Denver has been increasing in value long before legalization. Property values of houses near Dispensarys have dropped. I should know as all I've done for the last 20 years here is Home Loans. There is actually a Class Action Suit in process against the industry for damage done(real or perceived). Lenders cannot lend on properties that have had Pot grown in them when discovered. Homelessness is way up.
Those thinking Pot Sales is a panacea to their community's ills are sadly mistaken.
All that said, I'm not against it at all. You just have to come out of the dazed and confused cloud and look at the facts(as compared to the promises)...and maybe live in the middle of it to be have a valid opinion.
Our legislature had a visitor from colorado a few months ago...forget who but he was a govt official. They expected a positive review on marijuana especially since this peron was a proponent but what he had to say was anything but rosy.
I'm against it for recreation and I laugh at those that say it doesn't have negative effects..cmon it makes me question their experience with it. Yes alcohol is bad too I'm not arguing that but just because it is bad doesn't mean we should legalize this.
It should be left to the states no matter what however. Feds should stay out either way.
I'm against it for recreation and I laugh at those that say it doesn't have negative effects..cmon it makes me question their experience with it. Yes alcohol is bad too I'm not arguing that but just because it is bad doesn't mean we should legalize this.
It should be left to the states no matter what however. Feds should stay out either way.
I should open by saying I'm for out and out legalization and/or decriminalization (I'd prefer the first one) for ALL drugs.... so feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt (the people with closed minds will do that anyway, so figured I'd get it out of the way so I don't have to deal with it). I'm mostly just hoping that the pot issue will finally open people's eyes that while there may be some downsides, we're broke and can't afford to act like we can change things like this. I'm not holding my breath though...
Just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be illegal. That type of moralistic thinking is what makes government (and thus our monetary/corruption issues) so huge. If you want government to shrink (a truly minimal government instead of one that is and never stops growing) it definitely behooves you to look at things like this.
As long as you're not hurting SOMEONE ELSE, there shouldn't be an issue. 75-90% of the public health issues and spending with drugs (give or take, someone will probably have more accurate numbers than me but it gets my point across) will still be there if they're legal or illegal. The other 10-25% of public costs is easily covered by demilitarizing the police and legalization (thus cutting an infinite amount of programs). It also would allow people who want to get off the legal and medical ways to get off the drugs. They won't go get help now because they'll go to bloody jail. How is that remotely helpful or constructive to a better society (and to the people themselves)? Having the drugs illegal DOES NOT stop people from getting them. It doesn't even stop them from wanting to try them (and in a lot of cases CAUSES kids to want to try them in order to rebel or "be cool").
The literal trillions we've thrown away trying to get rid of drugs through jail costs, law enforcement costs and all the time congress takes arguing about it has been a total waste by pretty much every measure and doubling down repeatedly by slamming the door on something "because it's bad" is not even remotely intelligent and anyone who does it is in total denial.
Note: I'm a libertarian (or close enough), not a liberal so none of that garbage. I also DO NOT do drugs and barely drink alcohol. Just because the big government is something you approve of doesn't make it right or any less corrupt. On a personal level I DO NOT approve of drugs and have helped several people get off of them. And I'll also say I didn't even mention the Al Capone effect of making things that people will do anyway illegal (see: Mexican drug gangs).
I've also lived in Washington for a decade as an adult. This won't change that state at all. They didn't bust anyone for pot unless you had a trailer full for the time I lived there and that was 10 years ago -- well before it was legal. The cops realized they had better things to do and acted like it. And it should also be said that for the last 40 years give or take, Washington has had better roads, better paying jobs, much better growth, and a better overall economy than most of the other states mentioned here. It also ain't California.... fact is they hate that state at least as much as the Midwest because they always get lumped in with them (and because Californians are arrogant as heck... Washington is VERY mellow).
Washington is also still very much agricultural in huge parts of it outside Seattle (Spokane, Yakima Valley). Fairly nice place to visit and live if you want the truth.
That state ain't gonna change because pot was legalized. You're flat out dreaming/delusional if you think the legalization of pot specifically will cause things to go backwards in and of itself.
In the end, all I'll say on the subject is this (by someone much smarter than me) :
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Albert Einstein)
Just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be illegal. That type of moralistic thinking is what makes government (and thus our monetary/corruption issues) so huge. If you want government to shrink (a truly minimal government instead of one that is and never stops growing) it definitely behooves you to look at things like this.
As long as you're not hurting SOMEONE ELSE, there shouldn't be an issue. 75-90% of the public health issues and spending with drugs (give or take, someone will probably have more accurate numbers than me but it gets my point across) will still be there if they're legal or illegal. The other 10-25% of public costs is easily covered by demilitarizing the police and legalization (thus cutting an infinite amount of programs). It also would allow people who want to get off the legal and medical ways to get off the drugs. They won't go get help now because they'll go to bloody jail. How is that remotely helpful or constructive to a better society (and to the people themselves)? Having the drugs illegal DOES NOT stop people from getting them. It doesn't even stop them from wanting to try them (and in a lot of cases CAUSES kids to want to try them in order to rebel or "be cool").
The literal trillions we've thrown away trying to get rid of drugs through jail costs, law enforcement costs and all the time congress takes arguing about it has been a total waste by pretty much every measure and doubling down repeatedly by slamming the door on something "because it's bad" is not even remotely intelligent and anyone who does it is in total denial.
Note: I'm a libertarian (or close enough), not a liberal so none of that garbage. I also DO NOT do drugs and barely drink alcohol. Just because the big government is something you approve of doesn't make it right or any less corrupt. On a personal level I DO NOT approve of drugs and have helped several people get off of them. And I'll also say I didn't even mention the Al Capone effect of making things that people will do anyway illegal (see: Mexican drug gangs).
I've also lived in Washington for a decade as an adult. This won't change that state at all. They didn't bust anyone for pot unless you had a trailer full for the time I lived there and that was 10 years ago -- well before it was legal. The cops realized they had better things to do and acted like it. And it should also be said that for the last 40 years give or take, Washington has had better roads, better paying jobs, much better growth, and a better overall economy than most of the other states mentioned here. It also ain't California.... fact is they hate that state at least as much as the Midwest because they always get lumped in with them (and because Californians are arrogant as heck... Washington is VERY mellow).
Washington is also still very much agricultural in huge parts of it outside Seattle (Spokane, Yakima Valley). Fairly nice place to visit and live if you want the truth.
That state ain't gonna change because pot was legalized. You're flat out dreaming/delusional if you think the legalization of pot specifically will cause things to go backwards in and of itself.
In the end, all I'll say on the subject is this (by someone much smarter than me) :
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Albert Einstein)
An estimated $500 million is leaving the state every year for gambling in surrounding states, opponents argued. Their proposals would raise $120 million a year in tax revenue, the news release stated. My bad 500 million!! But we don't wanna "gamble with the good life"!! Whatever the hell that means.
Colorado State Patrol reports 83 fatalities in Colorado in 2015 with people under the influence of mj. This does not include county or local police enforcement. Just sayin'.
And how many fatalities did they report in reference to the trafficking of pot prior to its legalization?
Believe it or not, the article (in the Denver Post) doesn't say. Guess you can get that number on the interwebs. It did say there were 4500 DUIs issued by the CSP and 665 (15%) were for mj. They are evaluating some new testing devices that can be used roadside rather than waiting for blood test results. I know what you're getting at, but bad behavior doesn't justify other bad behavior.
You're right that bad behavior doesn't justify other bad behavior, but I take it your point was that the legalization of pot has had negative consequences and not merely positive ones. I'm sure that's right too, but if we're going to play the numbers game and weigh the costs and benefits of legalization, we need a better idea of the overall impact of legalizing pot as it relates to fatalities. This is where I was going, as I seriously doubt that a 15% increase in driving fatalities outweighs the costs of incarceration and the illegal trafficking of a substance that is largely benign, at least for adults.
In my opinion, discussing what those who make poor judgments will do under the influence of pot is a red-herring anyway. We cannot, as much as we might like to try, prevent people from injuring themselves and others through their poor choices. Does marijuana represent one more means for people to do so? Yes. And does it legalization make it easier for them to do so? Again, yes. But, unless you take it to be an express obligation of government to save us from ourselves, I don't know why these statistics get brought up. And even when they are, as I have been suggesting, we must weigh that rather idealistic pursuit with the costs of incarcerating and making illegal an activity that for the most part only affects those who do it themselves.
The war against drugs has been a complete and utter failure. We all know this, every statistic bears it out, and yet we cannot bring ourselves to legalize substances which most of us recognize as harmful and having limited social utility. But the problem is that the war on drugs has not only been a complete failure, it is also immoral. Young people's lives have been ruined because they've earned "criminal" records for smoking and possessing a drug that does little harm to anyone possessing a developed, adult brain. Our prisons have become bloated and costly - they are now in many cases being run by corporations who have an interest not in rehabilitation, but occupancy. We've fueled drug cartels in Mexico and throughout Latin America. Finally, many of those who become addicts and dependent on drugs are not "criminals." They are sick, and prison does not help them become any better. The war on drugs not only inclines us to turn a blind eye toward them, but to treat them as harmful deviants deserving of punishment.
Last edited:
I didn't mean to imply I was getting at anything, I was just curious. I've been looking online, and I'm having a hard time finding the numbers. I'm curious to see the difference. I'm wondering how many deaths had mj involved before it was legal vs. now as well. 83 seems like a small enough number (not saying their death doesn't matter, b/c it definitely does), that they may have been smoking anyway. I'm a huge advocate of not driving if your impaired in ANY way. Just makes no sense.
You're right that bad behavior doesn't justify other bad behavior, but I take it your point was that legal gun ownership has negative consequences and not merely positive ones. I'm sure that's right too, but if we're going to play the numbers game and weigh the costs and benefits of legalization, we need a better idea of the overall impact of gun ownership as it relates to fatalities. This is where I was going, as I seriously doubt that a 15% increase in gun homicides outweighs the costs of incarceration and the illegal trafficking of an item that is largely benign, at least for adults.
In my opinion, discussing what those who make poor judgments will do with their firearms is a red-herring anyway. We cannot, as much as we might like to try, prevent people from injuring themselves and others through their poor choices. Does owning a firearm represent one more means for people to do so? Yes. And does legal ownership make it easier for them to do so? Again, yes. But, unless you take it to be an express obligation of government to save us from ourselves, I don't know why these statistics get brought up. And even when they are, as I have been suggesting, we must weigh that rather idealistic pursuit with the costs of incarcerating and making illegal an activity that for the most part only affects those who do it themselves.
The war against guns will be a complete and utter failure. We all know this, every statistic bears it out, and yet we cannot bring ourselves to believe that the guns aren’t the problem, the criminals are. But the problem is that the war on guns has not only been a complete failure, it is also unconstitutional. Young people's lives have been altered because they've kept a hunting gun in their truck as school or pointed a finger at a classmate. Our prisons have become bloated and costly - they are now in many cases being run by corporations who have an interest not in rehabilitation, but occupancy. Every time gun restrictions are proposed, we've fueled the gun and ammo manufactures with an uptick in sales. Finally, many of those who use guns are not "criminals." They are rednecks, and prison does not help them become any better. The war on guns not only inclines us to turn a blind eye toward them, but to treat them as harmful deviants deserving of punishment.
Don't take this as an attack on you or your post as I have no idea what your views are regarding firearm ownership. I just have heard others make similar arguments regarding legalization of drugs yet they have a polar opposite argument regarding firearm ownership. Just food for thought.
Maybe not angry while stoned, but I've first-hand seen the rage and anger of individuals who are accustomed to smoking and cannot. I'm not saying this happens to everyone, but it does happen. And it is ugly. For these individuals, the only recourse was to quickly find some weed. Otherwise, they are angry, irrational, suicidal, and violent. Some people are more pre-disposed to addiction, and weed is no different. That's why I will always be opposed to its legalization. I've seen it destroy lives.
...not to mentioned the continued downhill spiral of this country's work ethic.
Last edited:
While you clearly said what you said, I was hearing this as I was processing your post.....But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg: isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!!! Hell NO and it ain't over now!!!
Right. Both arguments have a consequentialist structure and both presume that whether or not an activity is justifiable or lawful depends on its effects. I am not for an outright ban on guns. One can, however, draw a principled distinction between the purpose or function of guns and drugs - and I would. The purpose of guns is to inflict harm, as it is in the case of all weapons. (The purpose of drugs seems to me an interesting question by contrast, I guess I'd say in the case of recreational drugs that there purpose is to alter ones state of mind or reality.) Weapons, given that they are expressly designed to harm, ought to be subject to greater scrutiny and control.
That is my take on the matter, so the consequentialist argument ought to have more pull in the one direction than the other, but I'd prefer to stick the issue of marijuana
.As far as I know, the only stats available from Colorado is 44 deaths due to mj in 2014 and 83 in 2015. 2014 is the year it was first legalized.
Similar threads
