Pot Legalization from a (seemingly) Unusual Legislator

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Mr. Deez, Mar 5, 2015.

  1. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    State Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview) has filed a bill to repeal marijuana.

    http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-lawmaker-files-bill-to-legalize-marijuana-6111922.php

    http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/HB02165I.htm

    A few things that are interesting about this. First, Simpson was some burnout stoner from Austin, this wouldn't be a surprise. Instead, he's one of the most conservative members of the Legislature. If you read the Chronicle article, he's even invoking a biblical rationale for legalization. (Unlike many of his colleagues, he has a brain though.)

    Second, his approach is radically different from other states that have legalized week. He's not trying to heavily tax or regulate it. He's truly trying to get the government out of the marijuana industry and recognizes the failure of the drug war. This is not surprising. Simpson is and always has been a principled, no-******** guy. He's right on in what he's doing and in his rationale.

    Third, the GOP should rally around this type of proposal. It is consistent with conservative principles, and it gives them credibility with younger voters.

    Fourth, (and unfortunately) the bill is going nowhere. It'll get a hearing in committee, but it probably won't get referred out of the committee and certainly won't go to the floor. However, I could see the idea getting traction in future sessions.

    (Disclaimer - I don't smoke weed. I've never smoked weed - not even once. I will never smoke week.)
     
  2. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    Yeah, I've never understood the anti-drug position taken by so-called conservatives. If you truly believe in minimizing the role of government, and in keeping politician's out of people's lives, then you should support the right of each individual to decide whether to smoke weed. Using the state's power to regulate people's (arguably) self-injurious conduct in the hopes of improving their lives reflects a liberal mindset.
     
  3. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    I can make the first of those three disclaimers.:smokin:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Don't confuse conservatives with libertarians and I won't confuse liberals with socialists.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The drug war is where the social conservative side of "conservatives" overtakes the fiscal libertarian side. This is about legislating morality. There is probably a "if liberals want it then I'm against it" going on too.
     
  6. Driver 8

    Driver 8 Amor Fati

    What is the moral argument against marijuana that could not be applied to alcohol or tobacco or any other consciousness-altering substance?

    I smoked weed as a young man and didn't like it, made me all paranoid and withdrawn.
     
  7. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Aren't there areas in Texas that limit the purchase of Alcohol? I'd argue that some conservatives would happily outlaw alcohol too if they had the opportunity.
     
  8. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    So long as they don't let weed control their lives, I don't have a problem with tokers, or people like you who have toked and aspire to toke again. I've just never had much interest in smoking anything. I've even hung out in Amsterdam and still didn't try it.
     
  9. Driver 8

    Driver 8 Amor Fati

    It’s so absurd that people are still debating over these things because they have been classified as a "drug" and are therefore illegal without any deeper reflection into what it even means and the relative risk to society. It's beyond debate that alcohol abuse is responsible for I don't know how many thousands of deaths each year. Pot smokers typically get toasted and fall asleep on the sofa with a bag of Doritos on their face.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I think one can claim to be a conservative and support state drug laws, but I think one who calls himself a conservative but supports federal drug laws reeks of hypocrisy.
     
  11. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    The law has been consistent. Absinthe was illegal in the US until 2007. Absinthe was thought, incorrectly, to be a hallucinogen, and hence was prohibited like all other hallucinogenic drugs.

    Alcohol is a depressant and tobacco is a stimulant - not hallucinogens, hence their status.

    Now maybe you don't agree with the morality of hallucinogenic drugs, but like any moral code, it is what it is. I think a society is better with some form of moral code, even if isn't universally accepted (nothing is universally accepted), versus a do whatever the hell you want society. Maybe morals on hallucinogens will change in 10 years.


    Thankfully, as you can tell from my avatar, I'm my own man and think for myself. I also believe in, clutch your pearls, NASA and the NEA.

    I believe in being guided by what you think is right in your heart not what the labels of conservatism/liberalism say you should be boxed into.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2015
  12. Driver 8

    Driver 8 Amor Fati

    Consistently misguided. That was the point.
    So is heroin.
    I thought you were an explorer of dangerous new worlds.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2015
  13. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

  14. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    First, NASA and the NEA are on MUCH stronger constitutional footing than the war on drugs is. The federal government has the power to tax and to spend money on the general welfare. It also has the power to build and support a military (which could arguably justify NASA) and to support the arts and sciences (which could arguably justify the NEA). The war on drugs dictates what individuals are allowed to buy and put in their bodies. You would need a government agency with Gestapo-like power to enforce those laws with even a remote degree of effectiveness.

    Second, even if you so strongly feel that drugs are bad that you don't mind the colossal resources and oppressive government required to enforce the drug laws, don't you eventually have to ask yourself how it's all working out? You're spending tens of billions of dollars per year to attempt to enforce the laws and to incarcerate your fellow citizens. At the same time, you're encouraging the creation of a colossal black market for drugs that is backed by some pretty dangerous and violent criminal enterprises. Don't those financial and human costs concern you? Is it really worth spending the tens of billions and having thousands killed in the United States and overseas just to try (most likely unsuccessfully) to keep NJLonghorn from rolling and smoking a joint in the privacy of his own home?

    Finally, let's forget about political labels, money, constitutions, etc., and assume that the ends always justify the means. Don't you fear that you're setting a precedent that could hurt you? You want the government to go kick in NJLonghorn's door, take his dubbage, and throw him in the slammer (and of course, kill him if he resists). What happens if people decide that they don't like something you eat, drink, or smoke? Will you be OK with the government doing the same thing to you?
     
  15. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Good people can disagree on this. I certainly respect others' different opinions. Some arguments are a reduction to absurdism, which is a fine argument and completely logically. I just don't feel that strong societies operate at the extremes of absurdity.

    Have you ever been to Yemen? It's actually a very beautiful country. The climate is cool in most of the country. The East is where some of the best honey and dates in the world are grown, and in the West is where Mocha coffee originated. The towns there are still these amazing mud brick buildings from the middle-ages. And for the Arabian penninsula, the folks are genrally pretty friendly. However, every one - and I mean every one, chews khat. Khat is a psychoactive stimulant. The workday ends at noon, as all the men go to their khat chewing parties. That is all they aspire for and the young boys follow suit. This drug has sapped the life out of these men and made the country easy picking for AQ <= my underlying point which I should have mentioned first.

    I'm not a fan of the nanny state, but psycho active drugs, by their addictive and destructive nature, take the stakes to a different level. If we're talking about something less addictive but destructive or addictive but less destructive I wouldn't care. Psychoactive drugs are both and their abuse by others negatively affects me.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2015
  16. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    You make a great case as to why psychoactive drugs are a bad thing, and it's basically the same case that the War on Drugs advocates and their respective cottage industries have been making for 40 years. I don't doubt that psychoactive drugs are harmful to people and get them to do stupid and dangerous things, like they have in Yemen and other places.

    Nevertheless, and I say this with the utmost respect, you're sorta being a big candy *** on this. Saying "people can disagree on this" and then using that one diversionary comment to ignore the concerns I raised is a bit of a cop out. You can get away with that on some people here, but you've been here long enough to know that I'm too smart for that. it's a bit of an insult to my intelligence.

    Let's get back on topic. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care why drugs and pot are bad things, because I agree with you that they are. If I didn't, then I'd use them myself. That isn't the real issue here, and you're smart enough to know that it isn't. Let's isolate it even more. Most people (myself and probably NJLonghorn) don't have a problem with criminalizing people doing stupid things while under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or anything else. It should be a crime to drive or even hang around in public while stoned, but that kind of crime is relatively easy to enforce without turning us into Nazi Germany.

    The real issue is the acquisition and the subsequent use of pot and other drugs in the privacy of one's home. I have a problem with spending tens of billions of dollars per year and even worse, empowering a government institution with an absurd degree of power, and inviting truly violent criminal enterprises into the United States and Latin America to futilely try to stop people from using drugs in their own homes. I am very curious to know why you don't have a problem with it. If you think I'm incorrect in my assumptions or characterizations, then by all means, tell me where I'm wrong.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2015
  17. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Deez, I'm typing this on my phone. So excuse if there's some random inappropriate typo.

    You also know by now that I'm a Romantic Bones thinker and not an Age of Reason Spock thinker. You and NJ lay out the indisputable costs of the War On Drugs. I guess you can say I was a part-time NARC in the Navy. I did a few Puerto Rico detachments supporting our counter-smuggling operations in the Carribean. To be honest, I really enjoyed busting these guys. I'm sure it was insanely expensive deploying a detachment of a Navy Reconnaisance squadron to hunt down smugglers. And for all our efforts, I bet at least 7 boats got by for every 1 that we caught.

    Of course this is the black market that you mention. And it's wildly expensive to combat, and wildly expensive and dangerous for its victims/participants. The technocratic solution is to decriminalize pot to some arbirtray level (even allow its use and cultivation in one's home) and refocus our resources.

    But while I support technocratically efficient solutions in 90% of policy issues (reduction to the absurd for technocratic governance also has major problems), it's that other 10% where a society rises above to something greater. It's choosing a solution that's more difficult, more costly, and incredibly challenging because it believes the alternative is fundamentally not what the society is. Choosing the easy feel good solution is often the wrong choice in life. In this situation, it is my opinion that pschoactive drugs - even those cultivated and consumed in the privacy of one's home (because...come on) - are a virus to American Society and the American identity. That's not to say Amsterdam, where those things are everywhere, or other countries where pot is decriminalized, aren't fine places. But's they aren't the US.

    I think pot should be illegal and we should continue the War On Drugs as long as we can afford it...which admittedly may not be for that much longer. It's important for a country to know what it is, and not just what it can afford to be. Otherwise, even if it's still on a map, it's not really there. They key is to have as strong an economy as possible so the country doesn't have to capitulate.

    Ironically, making drugs legal would completely turn the anti-hero aspects of our culture on its head. I'm a docent at the National Gallery of Art, and I know at least 80% of the great modern art in America was created by guys baked out of their minds. You need a society with both sides to challenge what you believe. That makes those choices with consequnces we make, if you believe in them, more valuable and truly virtuous (and I know what y'all are thinking...I know homosexuality is not a choice and doesn't apply to this subject. Everyone here knows I believe in marriage equality).

    Obviously, I don't think this should be dictated to people. The people need to decide for themselves what we want to be.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2015
  18. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Here's a simpler thought Deez. You mention the principle of Constitutionality re: NASA and NEA. Good arguments. But why is the value of "Constitituonality" virtuous? Why do we care? As proponents of a "living" Constitution point out, the world is a different place then it was 220 years ago. A living Constitution would make things a lot easier wouldn't it?
     
  19. majorwhiteapples

    majorwhiteapples 5,000+ Posts

    One may not like the War on Drugs or you may have valid arguments against, but the question I have is what if it never happened? What would society be like now?

    As far as the War on Drugs, it was aimed at much stronger drugs than marijuana(sp). Heroin and Cocaine were the primary targets of this War.

    I personally don't care if a person uses drugs, but marijuana, coke, booze, they all lead to despair. Very few people are successful if they are abusers of these substances. The line has to be drawn somewhere and looking at weed, and the places that one has to go buy it and the majority of users in this country, that tells me that I don't want to live like that or be in that socio economic scale.

    I laugh at the people who think they can function on weed or any other substance including booze, it is obvious and these people jump from job to job with little regard to anything in the world but it being the weekend where they can binge......

    I have hired and fired a number of boozers and dope smokers, never ever again, they are wastes of time and space.

    Let the people vote on it......
     
  20. 1leggedduck

    1leggedduck 1,000+ Posts

    Well, I was going to just read and lurk, but this caught my attention. Probably, because of your background, you don't get invited to the same gatherings as a lot of the rest of us do. I would respectfully suggest that the American per capita pot consumption greatly surpases the Netherland's per capita use. I have no research to back that up.

    My oldest brother is many times wealthier than me. He was one of the early pioneers of Austin's remake of Silicon Valley. He drinks a little on the weekends, but generally smokes about half a joint in the afternoon after work. He would probably take Valium or Xanax otherwise. The side effects are minimal, and I have lived through a loved one weaning herself off Xanax, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

    My points: the use of marijuana in the U.S. is pervasive. People in all walks of life and at various levels of success use marijuana. As with any "substance", including alcohol, those who can control their use and grasp proper time and place, are fine. Those who cannot, become lifelong fry cooks. It isn't the substance, it is the people using the substance. Also, the history of the demonization of marijuana should serve as a warning about the dangers of industry using ignorance and influence to attain its own ends. There is no logical reason to criminalize the use of marijuana while alcohol remains legal. Conservatives should decry the massive use of tax dollars on a war that cannot be won, when "victory" is not the favored result of a great many Americans. Liberals should probably question why doctors can prescribe addictive poison like Xanax, but not a far less (if at all) addictive alternative. I would rather see all those tax dollars go to building schools.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. majorwhiteapples

    majorwhiteapples 5,000+ Posts

    Has anyone run the numbers on how much it costs the State of Colorado to run the TABC for Weed? Has anyone done any studies on how many more DUI's have occurred in Colorado and related states?

    I don't think weed is any better or any worse than booze, the line has to be drawn somewhere, find your line and support it, I don't have a problem letting you vote on it, let the majority rule. I do know that once people start having kids and those kids start to get older the opinion changes almost overnight on whether it should be legal or not.

    Let the people vote, the same with booze and boozing hours, same with smoking, let the local community decide, it should be a community decision, not a state or federal issue.
     
  22. Dobeyville

    Dobeyville < 25 Posts

    It will be interesting to see what the numbers say in the states with legalized pot in regard to traffic fatalities, on the job accidents, etc., after a decade of legalization. I hope Texas never allows the use of pot as a legal substance.
     
  23. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I don't fundamentally have a problem with marijuana but voted against it's legalization in Washington for that very reason.
     
  24. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts



    Good short doc on khat in Yemen.

    We all want liberty (well at least the pro-pot faction proclaims that in this particular issue - I'm not sure if they apply their libertarian sensibilities to other areas, I know for sure that's not the case in DC). Khat has sucked away all liberty from these folks. Their minds and thoughts are enslaved by chemicals. That's the deviousness of it all. Psycho active addictive drugs kill freedom, kill liberty, kill their will to think, kill the ability to make decisions. Khat took about 30 years to go full epidemic from just a guys poker night thing. And now it's too late for Yemen to change. They're all too fried and in denial to realize they're dead. Unsettling ironic isn't it?

    I admittedly have no scientific data to compare the effects of khat vs pot. Just observationally from being in Yemen and dating crazy women from Williamsburg, pot is much more powerful than khat which is just much more pervasive in Yemen.

    By the way...this new site that supports imbedded videos is awesome. :popcorn:
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2015
  25. nashhorn

    nashhorn 5,000+ Posts

    Interesting video Tex. One can only pray that is not the destiny of our rapidly approaching pot tolerance. I certainly am on the side of those opposed to sentencing the personal user but not in favor of wholesale legality, mainly because of the implication of harmlessness.
    Guess the Colorado experience is destined for extensive research and countless statistical analysis. I am surprised though that the illegal trade seems to not have diminished in the slightest. One dealer on 60 minutes (might have been 20/20) indicated his business was bigger than ever because his weed was cheaper. I always though that was a big reason cited for its legality, elimination of the black market.
     
  26. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I think it's ironic that you think legalizing marijuana (which has only been quasi-illegal since the '30s and truly criminal since the '70s) would shake the nation to its core so strongly that we'd lose our identity. However, you're OK with gay marriage, which redefines what a family is and has been for thousands of years. (I won't use the term "marriage equality," because it's a misnomer, and I think it matters what words mean.)

    Decriminalizing isn't the "feel good" solution. It's the rational approach. It's based on carefully weighing the costs and benefits of the War and making the logical choice. Nevertheless, I recognize that there's a lot more we can do. Yes, the Drug War is expensive but not in context. It's about a $50B per year expenditure for federal, state, and local governments. Combined, they take in well into the trillions, so we can go a lot further before truly going broke. Furthermore, we can raise taxes and take in even more money. If stopping people from using drugs is as important as you suggest, almost no price should be too high.

    So what's the next step? How would you fight the drug war? Increased penalties for drug users? Laxer standards to raid homes? What would you do?
     
  27. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Well, they're apparently not good enough for you. lol

    We care, because the Constitution is the only thing that limits the federal government's power. If we stop caring about following it, then those limits go away. In addition, if we stop caring about it, then the idea of the rule of written law is essentially gone. We'll have laws on the books, but they'll be meaningless. The real rule will be the subjective and arbitrary opinions of those who interpret the sham that is the written law.

    The world is a different place than it was 220 years ago, and that's why the Founding Fathers created an amendment process (actually more than one). However, what the "living" Constitution people advocate are dangerous, and frankly, it's the biggest factor that keeps me from considering voting for a Democrat for national office. Neither party fully respects the rule of law. They both will set it aside using warped, ****** up interpretations that turn the rules of construction on their heads in order to further their political agendas, but the Right respects it more than the Left does.
     
  28. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    I am for legalizing pot. I personally believe that the sky is falling predictions are overblown. Pretty much anybody that wants it for personal use has been able to get it for quite some time now. When I was in HS, more kids smoked pot than drank alcohol simply because it was easier to get. To argue that many of the dire predictions will come true, you would have to believe that a significant portion of the population is just waiting for it to be legal to start smoking it on a regular basis, will then get addicted, lose jobs, drive intoxicated, etc. I think that the idiots that behave like that probably don't give a crap that its illegal and use it already. Also, many businesses will continue to make it against policy for their workers to use it, even off the job.

    There may be some unintended consequences with legalization, but its not like criminalization has been effective. We have plenty of pot users, spend a ton of money on putting people in jail for it, and it has given an open door for police overreach (it smells like pot in here!!). I would advocate legalizing and increasing penalties for driving under the influence if it would appease the chicken littles.
     

Share This Page