States' Rights

Quote: rxwine

(btw, you can just issue a ticket or fine without locking people up, like a speeding ticket, it doesn't get worse until failing to obey the minor law)

The Honorable Governor Schwarzennegger did this with pot. An ounce or less was punishable with a $100 fine and no jail time. This new policy pissed me off, because it allows the criminal drug cartels who specialize in meth, crack, & heroin to continue to rake in bonus profits from marijuana. It leaves the criminal in control of a harmless substance. With no retail outlets, the state of California loses tax revenue and the buyer is forced to risk extraordinary sanctions if they attempt to grow their own plants. And more to the point, the alcoholic is an upstanding citizen but the occasional pot toker is still a pseudo-criminal: he has to worry about the police hasseling him for their $100 bribe.

No thanks. Quit playing games and legalize it already. All these politicians (Bush, Clinton, Obama, Schwarzennegar) are nothing more than stoners who never got caught.

Quote: rxwine

If a state wants to outlaw alcohol, have at it. I don't see either as fundamental rights.

The right at stake here is an adult's decision of what to do with their life and body, including what substance they choose to ingest and how. If this can be regulated to a state's content, then what's to prevent from banning medical procedures or even medications? If this seems like a stretch, think about abortion.

Now, before some troglodyte crawls from beneath a rock and babbles incoherently about conversion "therapy," I see not problem allowing it to exist for adults only. Minors should be protected from such charlatans, as they are from alcohol and drugs. Minors are not adults, and their parents don't always act in their best interests. That said, I'm not opposed either to having the purveyors of such "therapies" sued when their customers realize they've been paying for emotional and psychological abuse.

Quote: Nareed

The right at stake here is an adult's decision of what to do with their life and body, including what substance they choose to ingest and how. If this can be regulated to a state's content, then what's to prevent from banning medical procedures or even medications? If this seems like a stretch, think about abortion.

Ain't a stretch, it already happens.

You have to wonder where the dividing line is. Alcohol is almost always considered "recreational", but it does have a medicinal purpose. One of our own here used it for pain relief, and I won't lie, I do on occasion as well. We can argue that it's damaging, addictive, and all those buzz words, but what pain reliever isn't? Codeine, -codone, morphine... even acetaminophen will burn up your liver. People abuse pills all the time. So where is the line? Why is taking a manufactured nugget of chemicals looked at as "medicine", but a naturally occurring puddle of it looked at as a negative? Achy joints, strained back, sciatica, why is the advice never "Have one stiff drink as needed. Take with food. Do not operate heavy machinery. Do not exceed 4 drinks per day?" Especially when some people have adverse reactions to opiates, or have a higher propensity to become addicted to them than alcohol, why are we robbed of options?

Same goes for the weed argument.

There's just no logical reason for it. You can trumpet the same tired excuses that they're intoxicating and addictive and change brain chemistry... but what good pain reliever doesn't do every one of those things? The only obvious difference I see is one you can do yourself at home on the cheap, while the other is a billion dollar business.

Quote: Face

Ain't a stretch, it already happens.

I know.

I fear for the future, too.

Having lost the fight against marriage equality, I'm sure the conservatives will now turn against transgender rights. They're already passing ludicrous restroom bills. What's to prevent them, through states' rights, to outlaw genital surgery, prevent hormone blockers for minors(*), or even just regulate the hell out of hormone replacement therapies in order to make them practically unobtainable, as they've done in some places with abortion and in the country with immigration?


(*) In the case of transgender children, no hormones are prescribed before puberty. Usually what's given are hormone blockers to prevent puberty temporarily. there are reasons for this, and it's all decided jointly by the minor, their parents and doctors. It's not a casual choice, nor something easily attainable.

Quote: Nareed

The right at stake here is an adult's decision of what to do with their life and body, including what substance they choose to ingest and how. If this can be regulated to a state's content, then what's to prevent from banning medical procedures or even medications? If this seems like a stretch, think about abortion.

See, I'm only concerned if there is no reasonable places to do things. If you have to cross the border of Utah to gamble, so what? If you have to leave the US to use marijuana legally that's way out of proportion to the harm quotient (IMO).

So, I'm not worried about localized bans in particular.

If we're talking actual medical use, there has always been permission to use certain drugs that are prohibited otherwise. The only problem is some recreational drugs have been penalized for being recreational.

I will agree with Face (I think) it is a PITA to feel trapped in an area that shares too few of your values of freedom.

But I'm not sure if that is really the same definition of lack of freedoms shared in areas where you may be arrested or killed trying to go to places of more freedom in the world.

Quote: rxwine

See, I'm only concerned if there is no reasonable places to do things. If you have to cross the border of Utah to gamble, so what? If you have to leave the US to use marijuana legally that's way out of proportion to the harm quotient (IMO).

And if you need to go to another country to obtain a particular medication? And if you need to go to another state in order to get an abortion?

And don't get me started about how much more difficult it is to transition after puberty.

Quote:

If we're talking actual medical use, there has always been permission to use certain drugs that are prohibited otherwise. The only problem is some recreational drugs have been penalized for being recreational.

Before bans on medical pot were lifted, and the feds stopped interfering (assuming they have), obtaining such permissions wasn't an easy matter.

Aside from that, all drugs are "recreational." If you can call it that when you see a broke junkie passed out in the gutter, or a drunk for that matter.

Quote: Nareed

And if you need to go to another country to obtain a particular medication? And if you need to go to another state in order to get an abortion?

But I don't think that violates what I construed.

Having to travel across the border for medication you need all the time is unreasonable.

The abortion strategy of its opponents is to make that choice unreasonable and next to impossible, not to allow it here and there which is what I'm saying. There's nothing reasonable or localized about their strategy.

So again, reasonable choices. Localized bans do not concern me.

Right now, Florida has a legalized form of medicinal marijuana. Perfect example of a state where we can't get the drug legally, but can reasonably use the medical version without crossing borders. They only allow a synthesized form for treatment of seizures in children, and it's no good for recreational use (AFAIK).

While I would like to see the state go whole hog for legalization, it's just not there yet.

Quote: rxwine

So again, reasonable choices. Localized bans do not concern me.