Skip to main content

View Diary: Schedule II, or high on the list (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I get a little tired of recreation being dumped on (12+ / 0-)

    Oh my god, folks will get cannabis and, you know, recreate with it!

    There's a department of parks and recreation at the city, county, state and federal level.  We obviously can deal with recreation if we choose to.

    Recreational pot smokers who smoke to much get hungry and take a nap.  It's the drinkers who kill all our people in their cars.

    So people smoke pot and recreate with a book, cooking, sex, painting, working out, the list of horrors goes on.  Terrible.

    •  Not politically possible yet (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elkhunter, pistolSO

      I am not saying in my diary that recreational use should be criminal.  But that dog simply won't hunt at the federal level.  And there aren't a lot of DFHs in Washington.  In fact the pols probably figure that DFHs don't vote often.

      But the first step to rationality is to legalize medical use.  That could pass Congress with bipartisan support and also help the president with his base.  It's a half step, but an important one, and changes the product from "illegal" to "legal", even if there are restrictions on its legal availability.

      Let's put this nail in Harry Anslinger's coffin.

      •  Hmmm DFH? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        crescentdave, elkhunter, kyril, jabney

        Is it really about hippies? Remember - Marijuana legalization got more votes than Obama in Colorado, and polls by Gallup show national support for legalization at 50%. Had the fools in California waited two years for the bill there, legalization would have taken place there too.
        I think you are right that Congress runs 10 years behind national sentiment. But I think there are any number of states that will go legal with well drafted laws and well financed campaigns - like MT, VT, MA, RI. And another shot in four years in Oregon.

        "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

        by shmuelman on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:06:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's the fear of being perceived a DFH (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shmuelman, elkhunter, kyril, paradox

          Political culture does, as you note, run behind national sentiment. And it runs to the right.  So politicians fear being perceived as DFH-friendly, or being closet DFHs themselves.  It is silly, of course, but they probably fear negative campaigns that would bring out the prohibitionist crowd (though it would probably have to be from their graves).

          Of course part of it is "law and order", which was a code word for, well, the N-word.  That's still powerful among white voters, and the uneven enforcement of marijuana laws is consistent with racist intent.  Most well-off white kids who get a pot bust are let off; black kids are more likely to be branded felons.

      •  NOT politically possible? (7+ / 0-)

        As a 57 year old, non-pot smoking resident of the great state of Washington, I can tell you it IS politically possible.

        This just in: In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, those surveyed say by almost 2-1, 63%-34%, that the federal government shouldn't take steps to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that legalize pot.

        There is a sea change and there's no reason to tap dance around this issue. Promoting marijuana for medical use only completely misses the larger, more palatable and compelling point- the people want it for recreational use.

        If we can talk about republicans needing to become reality-based around changing demographics re: gay rights, Latino rights and more ... we need to wake up and smell the ganja ... the group that gives a shit about continuing to criminalize marijuana use is dying off.

        It's a generational thing. And those who advocate a restricted legalization, don't get it. The bus has passed them by- in the other lane. They're on the wrong side of history.  

        Even a purely moral act that has no hope of any immediate and visible political effect can gradually and indirectly, over time, gain in political significance. –Vaclav Havel

        by crescentdave on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:23:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I was not dumping on recreational use. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, jabney

      I was advocating it.  I was dumping on medicinal use.

      "Jersey_Boy" was taken.

      by New Jersey Boy on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:12:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site