Why laws re medical marijuana and guns are loosening at the same time

[friendly_iconoclast]

People are realizing that blaming legal users for criminal activity is pointless.

Penalizing non-criminals gun owners for the actions of criminals is like penalizing arthritis sufferers or chemo patients
for the actions of the Gulf Cartel.

[depakid]

1. ....

:rofl:

That bit of speciousness would have been amusing on a day without reports of a mass shooting and a 12 year old child charged with murder for killing a family member, but on such a day...

[Tim01]

6. That's a bit of a stretch in such a big country, don't you think? nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. Recent tragedy and special pleading aside, what is specious about it?

It would be just as unfair to hold all Australians responsible for the xenophobic violence of a racist minority, for example...

[depakid]

8. The reasoning

Marijuana prohibition is very expensive- as states facing severe budget constraints have found out.

At the same time- regulations on any entrenched interests, whether they involve banskters, health insurers or the NRA are deemed unpalatable politically because they run afoul of big money interests and/or highly vocal minorities.

Completely different motivations and dynamics at play.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. An important difference amongst the three groups you cite.

Banksters and health insurors have much money, and very little popular support (save their employees- legislators included-
and the GOP faithful) They must therefore buy their influence. Michael Bloomberg is a corporatist par excellance
and he is vocally anti-gun

The "NRA" (for which I will take to mean 'the organized gun rights lobby') has little money, but something even more important - a large bloc of motivated voters. Even "the NRA" mostly isn't NRA- they have only four million members.

When you piss off law abiding people who have the motive, means, and opportunity to take revenge upon you by way of the
ballot box, any good you might otherwise have done will be thrown out the door with you. Democrats made that mistake for
decades, and I'm glad to see that some of them, at least, have realized it.

[aliendroid]

16. look at the violent crime graph.

notice it is not zero, yeah violent crime still occurs, albeit at a slower pace thanks to concealed carry. You'll never be able to stop the anecdotal evidence, but it is not weak evidence it is not evidence at all for your argument.

[madinmaryland]

2. When was the last time you heard about a stoner involved in gun violence?

Unless of course they got between the stoner and his cheesy puffs!

:smoke:

[paulsby]

3. that's one of the reasons why so many cops i know

myself included support decrim/legalization.

it's NOT the stoners that are assaulting us, beating their gf's, robbing people to support their habit, etc.

MJ traffickers can be violent (obviously), but stoners are (almost always) not.

and when compared to alcohol...

[Tim01]

5. Yeah, no doubt. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Undoubtedly. The *users* of alcohol wreak far more havoc than stoners do

But most people can handle booze responsibly, and people do tend to obey reasonable regulations upon alcohol use.

I don't hold people who *do* drink in moderation to be responsible for drunks who get violent or drive while intoxicated.

Same with MJ use. If you're not driving, operating machinery or watching the kids, what skin is it off my (or anybody else's) ass?

It's the difference between malum prohibitum "bad because it's banned" and malum in se (basically "bad because
it's inherently bad")

[paulsby]

11. i can agree with all that

both drugs can be used responsibly.

the potential for abuse is present in both drugs, although in the case of MJ *unlike* alcohol, it is not physically addictive, has no LD50 value, etc.

somebody using "too much" MJ is unlikely to be a burden on society or others. most likely he'll go to sleep.

somebody using too much alcohol is MUCH more likely to need medical intervention, act out violently, etc.

[aliendroid]

14. and

you cannot OD on weed and it is not considered a poison like cocaine or opioids.

but alcohol can kill you, weed can't

[Tim01]

4. Both are stupid police state restrictions. nt

[sharesunited]

10. Maybe because we need weed to deal with the discomfort of gunshot wounds?

[Katya Mullethov]

15. Look at me ....... look in my eyes

Are you high ?

[sharesunited]

18. I will gladly pee test. In your hat.

[Katya Mullethov]

19. And I would gladly extend it .

Just to see if it crawls back up .

[SteveM]

20. Sooo, are you in favor of ending ganja prohibition? nt

[aliendroid]

12. amen

exactly, mary jane and smith and wesson aren't at fault for societies problems, people are figuring that out.

[Hoopla Phil]

17. Now that IS an interesting comparison.

I dig it.

[SteveM]

21. Watch El Paso, as a bellweather: first in anti-pot laws, maybe the first to dump...

those laws. Some speculation: For the second time in less than 2 years, the WOD, Inc., esp. marijuana prohibition, is under attack by many citizens and even the City Council of El Paso. There seems little support or continuing the WOD, but as expected, for now, the council refused to act, even on de-criminalization. Central to the discussion: the ultra-violence in Juarez, and the wracked quality of life, there. (This from an unremembered T.V. news feed last week.)

El Paso knows all too well the violence can spread into El Paso. The gangs running things in Mexico are, politically and militarily, the match for the Mexican government. They have the ability to franchise into this country all manner of activities (this may have been completed with regards the vertical integration of meth). Huge sums of untaxed, unrecorded monies plus the "expertise" of Mexican gangs pose the same threats to El Paso as exist in Juarez and beyond.

El Paso is a strong RKBA city with a heavily-armed civilian population. No doubt, this keeps the gangs from using the same genocide/cleansing terror-styles they exercise in their own country. But can that be sufficient to prevent more crime and chaos in the future? This open debate may represent a "greening" of many in the region who face not only the day-to-day blood-grind of prohibition, but can no longer reconcile drug prohibition and an "un-prohibited" right to keep and bear arms, and have opted for the obvious. Cali, Oregon and the college towns are one thing, but there is "play" in the politics of this border city.