Practical approach to the 'next step' toward ending mairjuana prohibition?

Instead of a government representative of failure, insofar as having implemented an inferior means-to-an-end, which is to say this prohibition of cannabis, along with its weak, superficial facades of propaganda, 'treatment', 'criminalization' and other instruments that reap nothing but vanity and ineffectiveness, why not simply maintain the government's moral disposition on drugs (so as to appear noncontradictory; 'political'), e.g. the immoralization of weed, and aid the people's capacity to medicate through use of cannabis with much easier medical requirements?

Thus a higher number of people in one's state smoke legally in which, yielding a substantially less-demanding drug-market for cannabis, will inevitably push the black-market for cannabis toward a more profitable location, e.g. another state, whereby the affected surrounding states will likely be inclined to either alleviate this consequential pressure, or economically inclined to model itself after, by means of this 'next step'. It would be a means to act as a 'middle ground' between cannabis activists with such bills as legalization and frustrated politicians whom wish to evade political suicide, or even wish to instill 'traditional' values, but yet stand in an increased necessity of absolving criminalization expenses that simply act as ideological band-aids to a presupposed broken bone?

What do you blades think?

i think you could've stated your argument in a couple of simple sentences instead of using big words to try and sound smart

I don't believe I was pretentious in that sense, but rather philosophically concise.

666 post u're fuckin evil

So far so good!

So you're saying when one state legalizes, a dominoe effect will occur.




How haven't we thought of this?

So you're saying when one state legalizes, a dominoe effect will occur.




How haven't we thought of this?

No, that's not what I'm sayinig. The entire argument is centered around the maintenance of a government facade without wanting marijuana's legalization to appear as if a world-dominating power is synonymous with the concept of hypocrisy and contradiction. It would be a federal necessity to acknowledge medical-ity and primarily not legalization insofar as I value the the federal level's practicality of this situation, and of course for other reasons posted above.

EDIT: For all those unaware, marijuana is explicitly illegal and thus those with medical cards in state-levels are subject to arrest by federal officials for possession or cultivation charges. It is classified as a Schedule I drug and is defined as a drug "with no accepted medical value in treatment."

This is why I argue that the federal medicalization is the most pragmatic of reasons on both sides.

Edited by AshTRE, 15 June 2012 - 07:38 PM.
Additation

all you did was use big words to sound smart, you could have said what you wanted to in like 3 sentences so us stoners could understandd duuurrrrr...

That pretty much was 3 sentences in my OP, lol

I don't know. That approach seems to serve to try to push us all back into the closet again, and leave us at their mercy. I'm sick of being at their mercy. Right now, we've got the feds on the run. Recent polls show more than 50% of the country is in favor of full legalization, and nearly 80% of the country is ready for legal medical cannabis in all 50 states. We need to keep them running while we continue to push for OUR agenda, which is ultimately full legalization.

This is what I think will happen: One state will pass into law the state's right to tax and regulate cannabis like tobacco and alcohol. (I'll bet my left big toe that Colorado will be the first to accomplish this amazing feat!) That state will implement the new guidelines, and will soon begin to see a return on their efforts by way of tax dollars. Then, the feds are going to try to flex their muscles, and push that state to submit to federal law again. That state isn't going to like being told what to do by the feds, especially after they start to get used to all that new money rolling in. When that happens, that state will push back. As other states begin to see what is happening, and how it is happening, they're going to grow some balls, too, and start passing new cannabis laws of their own. After that, we'll start to see more of the domino effect, and state after state will start writing cannabis bills of their own. In ten years, we could have full legalization nation wide.

I could see this working but I feel pearls idea works better for the greedy bastards we have in the senate. If our gov. Really was a democracy weed would already be legal. But until the gov. Finds a way to profit more off it being legal then illegal then the laws will never change federally

Yo I think it will happen man idk when but we'll all be free.

I don't know. That approach seems to serve to try to push us all back into the closet again, and leave us at their mercy. I'm sick of being at their mercy. Right now, we've got the feds on the run. Recent polls show more than 50% of the country is in favor of full legalization, and nearly 80% of the country is ready for legal medical cannabis in all 50 states. We need to keep them running while we continue to push for OUR agenda, which is ultimately full legalization.

This is what I think will happen: One state will pass into law the state's right to tax and regulate cannabis like tobacco and alcohol. (I'll bet my left big toe that Colorado will be the first to accomplish this amazing feat!) That state will implement the new guidelines, and will soon begin to see a return on their efforts by way of tax dollars. Then, the feds are going to try to flex their muscles, and push that state to submit to federal law again. That state isn't going to like being told what to do by the feds, especially after they start to get used to all that new money rolling in. When that happens, that state will push back. As other states begin to see what is happening, and how it is happening, they're going to grow some balls, too, and start passing new cannabis laws of their own. After that, we'll start to see more of the domino effect, and state after state will start writing cannabis bills of their own. In ten years, we could have full legalization nation wide.

I agree with your analysis very much so, but I believe that the federal government isn't ignorant of state-affairs/relationships so as to be 'inconsiderate' of, possibly inevitable, outcomes. This is why I focus and center my perspective upon the necessity of a federal government's reverence to remain in-tact and astray from contradiction and imprudent politics. Thus federal medicalization would be a means of compassion and a means of merely 'realizing' the desideratum for compassion, rather than forced to display malleable federal law and contradictory ethical agenda.

To have medical marijuana affluent would yield relatively similar 'ends', such as diminishing cannabis black-marketability and its costly/violent consequences, with regarding the aim of full-fledged marijuana legalization, but federal medicalization differs in that it offers a realistic foot-stone into inevitable cannabis decriminalization (legalization a possibility amongst it), does not disturb state-relations in a forceful manner (accourding to your federal "muscle flex" theory), and preserves federal 'reverence'.

Edited by AshTRE, 19 June 2012 - 10:07 AM.

Enough of the ostentatious displays AshTRE, it just makes your posts seem convoluted.

lay man's - Littering your posts with unnecessary synonyms makes you look like a goof.

Feel free to point out what synonymous used are "unnecessary".

Or, if you feel like being relevant, offer some insight or criticism.

If there was federal medicinal mj then that would just prolong legalization bc the government would say its medicine and shouldn't be used recreationally.


Pearls idea is the best way to go about it, let the states do it on their own and wait for the rest follow along.


And we get it, you love your vocabular.

If there was federal medicinal mj then that would just prolong legalization bc the government would say its medicine and shouldn't be used recreationally.


Pearls idea is the best way to go about it, let the states do it on their own and wait for the rest follow along.

There is a reason that I stated this previously:

To have medical marijuana affluent would yield relatively similar 'ends', such as diminishing cannabis black-marketability and its costly/violent consequences, with regarding the aim of full-fledged marijuana legalization, but federal medicalization differs in that it offers a realistic foot-stone into inevitable cannabis decriminalization (legalization a possibility amongst it), does not disturb state-relations in a forceful manner (according to your federal "muscle flex" theory), and preserves federal 'reverence'.

It would be a means to act as a 'middle ground' between cannabis activists with such bills as legalization and frustrated politicians whom wish to evade political suicide, or even wish to instill 'traditional' values, but yet stand in an increased necessity of absolving criminalization expenses that simply act as ideological band-aids to a presupposed broken bone?

By no means would this system prolong legalization, but ensure it.

Btw, Hiowa, I used to live in w. des moines

HiowA's got it! Consider the state a self-serving entity. That can be interpreted negatively, or positively. In this case, it would be a positive. It's a good thing for the individual, and it's a good thing, overall, for the state. Congress cannot stop a state from creating its own laws. What congress can do, is send in federal authorities to flex their muscles, make threats, and even make good on some of those threats after the fact. When that time comes, it is up to the state to hold its ground. Like I said previously, I believe that states will hold their ground once they begin to see the amount of money they could make, but will lose, if they bend to the will of the feds.

I don't want the feds involved. They seem to have the opposite of the Midas Touch, everything they touch turns to shit. State governments make mistakes, but I still have more faith in, and more trust in, my state. And quite frankly, I'm tired of the feds acting like they're John Wayne when they go after states that write their own laws. In reality, the states are John Wayne, and the feds are Margaret O'Brien stomping their feet and throwing tantrums when they don't get their way.

There is a reason that I stated this previously:






By no means would this system prolong legalization, but ensure it.

Btw, Hiowa, I used to live in w. des moines

If the Feds took over mmj, then Big Pharma would be in control of it. They would never legalize it when they're making billions off of it being medicinal only.



Nice I'm in Cedar Rapids atm

Feel free to point out what synonymous used are "unnecessary".

synonyms*

Put the thesaurus away OP and instead look at a dictionary


I agree with pearl