Another shooting on campus

[Spotcheck Billy]

no we'll sue Big Pharma that sells the pot pills

[ChicosBailBonds]

The key difference is that tobacco companies knowingly misled the public to think that cigarettes weren't harmful.

POT IS HARMFUL.

Doesn't mean it has to be illegal. Lots of "harmful" things are legal.

Also, from a practicality standpoint, making such things illegal creates another unregulated marketplace, and there are a whole new set of issues that go along with that.

I'm not saying Pot should definitely BE LEGAL, but I won't dismiss it out of hand.

Correct you are, except the timeline is a little different.  In the early stages of cigarettes, I don't believe that was the case.  Certainly later it was and the companies got sued accordingly for hiding information.  Remember, cigarettes were introduced in 1840's in Europe and didn't really catch on in the US until the 1850's.  It wasn't until the 1920's or 1930's that health risks started to be talked about and much more so in the 1950's.

So that begs the question, what kind of research has really been down around POT?  Isn't it funny with the latest two studies, people can't wait to bash them as wrong.  Makes you wonder why.  Are we just going to legalize and then find out what happens 10, 15, 20, 25 years from now and say OOOPS?  What is the recourse at that time?  Or is there none?  I think those are fair questions to ask, but I agree there are many harmful things that are legal.

[Lennys Tap]

I'd like some consistency.  Tobacco is bad, we go after tobacco companies, we have ads condemning the usage all the time.  Pot is harmful, impacts some people poorly from a health perspective, yet we glorify it and are pushing more lax laws.  What kind of true research has been done to understand all the impacts?  What are the impacts in vehicle accidents, workplace injury, general safety for others, what does it lead to (heavier drug use \ alcohol use), etc.  Decades ago we let products be sold without totally understanding them.  Then, we learned more about it and much of it was hidden from the consumer, thus the tobacco companies got sued to kingdom come.  What happens as we learn more of impacts to health on these drugs, who is everyone going to sue 20, 30 years down the road?  The gov't?

Believe me, if pot is legalized and is the killer that tobacco is it will get plenty of bad press. There's no inconsistency here. Tobacco dug its own grave. They knew their product was addictive and sought to make it more addictive. And they knowingly perjured themselves about that. They also knew that their product in and of itself was lethal, killing thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people. They lied under oath about that too. Even given that, those poor little corporations for whom your heart bleeds are still making money hand over fist. I'm okay with that (though I have to swallow hard when I say that) but please, no pity parties for the tobacco companies. They're the bad guys and that's undeniable.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Correct you are, except the timeline is a little different.  In the early stages of cigarettes, I don't believe that was the case.  Certainly later it was and the companies got sued accordingly for hiding information.  Remember, cigarettes were introduced in 1840's in Europe and didn't really catch on in the US until the 1850's.  It wasn't until the 1920's or 1930's that health risks started to be talked about and much more so in the 1950's.

So that begs the question, what kind of research has really been down around POT?  Isn't it funny with the latest two studies, people can't wait to bash them as wrong.  Makes you wonder why.  Are we just going to legalize and then find out what happens 10, 15, 20, 25 years from now and say OOOPS?  What is the recourse at that time?  Or is there none?  I think those are fair questions to ask, but I agree there are many harmful things that are legal.

We'll print in on every package from DAY 1. 

POT IS BAD FOR YOU. YOU SHOULDN'T USE IT.

Then, if consumers hurt themselves, it's their own fault.

Nobody is suing about cigarettes right now. EVERYBODY knows its dangerous. That's it. Case closed.

To be honest, the tobacco industry is better off. They don't have to lie anymore. Tell everybody its bad. Tell them not to do it. People still do it. Philip Morris still makes $$.

I actually understand the case against legalizing pot, but I don't really understand if that case if being made by a self proclaimed conservative/libertarian. I'm not trying to be a dick, but that's honestly confusing to me.

[Benny B]

Oh, and I know it's hypocritical, but I'm not sure if I want to legalize meth (and/or blow). They are soooo additive and destructive.

But that's the whole point... survival of the fittest.  The more addictive and destructive the drug, the less likely the user survives.  Darwinism will ultimately prove to be infinitely more succesful than the War on Frugs ever could be.

[keefe]

I actually understand the case against legalizing pot

I am actually very confused as to how or why government chooses its outrages. Somehow, marijuana has been determined to be evil while tobacco and alcohol are readily available despite overwhelming scientific evidence as to their negative health impacts.

The reality is that monied interests lobbied aggressively against marijuana more than a century ago which led to its being made illegal in the United States. Corporate profits, combined with ignorance, ambition, and racism coalesced behind the power of the Hearst Empire to demand that marijuana be banned.

WASP westward expansion collided with Catholic Hispanic populations who preferred cannabis over other forms of social lubricants. Racism and religious intolerance seized on the Hispanic preference as a lever of oppression and the first laws against marijuana were all enacted throughout the west.

But the reality is that marijuana was once a mandatory crop in all of the original English settlements. Colonists were required to plant hemp for its many industrial uses which were vital for survival on a frontier.

I am astounded that government feels it has the right to intervene on such a granular level in the lives of its citizens. Marijuana laws are right up there with Prohibition, the Sodomy Statutes, Same Sex Restrictions and every other effort made to legislate morality. Neither Central nor State authority was vested with such discretionary powers at the founding of this nation. Thomas Jefferson, home vintner and brewer and hemp and tobacco grower, never would have envisioned the ridiculous intrusions that presently pass for Federal Authority in this once great Republic.

The sad reality of our Drug Statutes is that our society bears an inordinately high cost for their enforcement and the incarceration of its offenders. A citizen can be deprived of his liberty for years for possession of cannabis - and we pay for that in far too many ways. Politicians know that sounding tough on crime, enacting even more stringent drug laws, spending more on cops and prisons, and enflaming racial fears through the surrogate of drug laws translates into votes from the center and contributions from pharma, alcohol, and agribusiness among other constituencies.

I have no dog in this fight. I do not smoke weed and, because of my wound care drug therapy, I don't even drink alcohol these days. But I am astounded a man can be deprived of his liberty because of weed that is now legal in two jurisdictions. As a card carrying member of the Cato Institute I could not see this any other way, frankly.

[ChicosBailBonds]

We'll print in on every package from DAY 1. 

POT IS BAD FOR YOU. YOU SHOULDN'T USE IT.

Then, if consumers hurt themselves, it's their own fault.

Nobody is suing about cigarettes right now. EVERYBODY knows its dangerous. That's it. Case closed.

To be honest, the tobacco industry is better off. They don't have to lie anymore. Tell everybody its bad. Tell them not to do it. People still do it. Philip Morris still makes $$.

I actually understand the case against legalizing pot, but I don't really understand if that case if being made by a self proclaimed conservative/libertarian. I'm not trying to be a dick, but that's honestly confusing to me.

Don't confuse Libertarian with libertarian.   The Libertarian party had legalization as one of their planks.  Now, I fully admit libertarians support legalization in a majority, but it's not a slam dunk either.

Personally, I have a bias because of what happened to my sister and her boyfriend...murdered over a drug situation.  These kids started with mj, got bored with it (gateway) and moved on up the ladder.  That led to some bad stuff and eventually this guy getting killed.

I think kids lives are damn hard as it is right now, not sure throwing this stuff in everyone's face out in the open doesn't create a can of worms.  Too easy to buy (even if you need to be 18), etc, etc. 

[swoopem]

Don't confuse Libertarian with libertarian.   The Libertarian party had legalization as one of their planks.  Now, I fully admit libertarians support legalization in a majority, but it's not a slam dunk either.

Personally, I have a bias because of what happened to my sister and her boyfriend...murdered over a drug situation.  These kids started with mj, got bored with it (gateway) and moved on up the ladder.  That led to some bad stuff and eventually this guy getting killed.

I think kids lives are damn hard as it is right now, not sure throwing this stuff in everyone's face out in the open doesn't create a can of worms.  Too easy to buy (even if you need to be 18), etc, etc. 

To quote Eminem "marijuana is everywhere, where was you brought up"

[keefe]

Don't confuse Libertarian with libertarian.   The Libertarian party had legalization as one of their planks.  Now, I fully admit libertarians support legalization in a majority, but it's not a slam dunk either.

Personally, I have a bias because of what happened to my sister and her boyfriend...murdered over a drug situation.  These kids started with mj, got bored with it (gateway) and moved on up the ladder.  That led to some bad stuff and eventually this guy getting killed.

I think kids lives are damn hard as it is right now, not sure throwing this stuff in everyone's face out in the open doesn't create a can of worms.  Too easy to buy (even if you need to be 18), etc, etc. 

Chico

I am sorry for what happened to your sister but that cannot be the basis for a view that is antithetical to your otherwise libertarian values. And without getting into the specifics of your sister's incident, the statute had little if anything to do with the murder.

As Jefferson wrote to John Page,

"The most fortunate of us, in our journey through life, frequently meet with calamities and misfortunes which may greatly afflict us; and, to fortify our minds against the attacks of these calamities and misfortunes, should be one of the principal studies and endeavours of our lives. The only method of doing this is to assume a perfect resignation to the Divine will, to consider that whatever does happen, must happen; and that by our uneasiness, we cannot prevent the blow before it does fall, but we may add to its force after it has fallen. These considerations, and others such as these, may enable us in some measure to surmount the difficulties thrown in our way; to bear up with a tolerable degree of patience under this burthen of life; and to proceed with a pious and unshaken resignation, till we arrive at our journey’s end, when we may deliver up our trust into the hands of him who gave it, and receive such reward as to him shall seem proportioned to our merit. Such, dear Page, will be the language of the man who considers his situation in this life, and such should be the language of every man who would wish to render that situation as easy as the nature of it will admit. Few things will disturb him at all: nothing will disturb him much."

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chico

I am sorry for what happened to your sister but that cannot be the basis for a view that is antithetical to your otherwise libertarian values. And without getting into the specifics of your sister's incident, the statute had little if anything to do with the murder.

As Jefferson wrote to John Page,

"The most fortunate of us, in our journey through life, frequently meet with calamities and misfortunes which may greatly afflict us; and, to fortify our minds against the attacks of these calamities and misfortunes, should be one of the principal studies and endeavours of our lives. The only method of doing this is to assume a perfect resignation to the Divine will, to consider that whatever does happen, must happen; and that by our uneasiness, we cannot prevent the blow before it does fall, but we may add to its force after it has fallen. These considerations, and others such as these, may enable us in some measure to surmount the difficulties thrown in our way; to bear up with a tolerable degree of patience under this burthen of life; and to proceed with a pious and unshaken resignation, till we arrive at our journey’s end, when we may deliver up our trust into the hands of him who gave it, and receive such reward as to him shall seem proportioned to our merit. Such, dear Page, will be the language of the man who considers his situation in this life, and such should be the language of every man who would wish to render that situation as easy as the nature of it will admit. Few things will disturb him at all: nothing will disturb him much."

For the record, it was her boyfriend killed, not her.  Sorry if that didn't come across.  Yes, I agree that one personal anecdote shouldn't be used, it is just my bias and I'm honest about it.  Beyond what happened to her, I just have a problem in general about legalizing something that for some people just leads to bigger issues.  People can say it isn't a gateway drug, that's B.S.  It is for some, how many is up for debate, but it is human nature.  You start with beer, you move on to the hard stuff.  You start with cigs, move on to weed, then move on to something else (for some, not all...fully realize, not all) Start with the missionary, next thing you're on the trampoline (which I fully endorse).   

[keefe]

For the record, it was her boyfriend killed, not her.  Sorry if that didn't come across.  Yes, I agree that one personal anecdote shouldn't be used, it is just my bias and I'm honest about it.  Beyond what happened to her, I just have a problem in general about legalizing something that for some people just leads to bigger issues.  People can say it isn't a gateway drug, that's B.S.  It is for some, how many is up for debate, but it is human nature.  You start with beer, you move on to the hard stuff.  You start with cigs, move on to weed, then move on to something else (for some, not all...fully realize, not all) Start with the missionary, next thing you're on the trampoline (which I fully endorse).   

I have already contacted the Cato Institute. I should expect they shall be wanting a return of credentials forthwith. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades, Chico. This is about being pregnant or not. Indeed, it is for the very soul of a nation.

[Lennys Tap]

I have already contacted the Cato Institute. I should expect they shall be wanting a return of credentials forthwith. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades, Chico. This is about being pregnant or not. Indeed, it is for the very soul of a nation.

This. If all freedoms can be taken away because some abuse them there will be none left in short order. And if principles are compromised over an anecdote they were never principles to begin with.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I am actually very confused as to how or why government chooses its outrages. Somehow, marijuana has been determined to be evil while tobacco and alcohol are readily available despite overwhelming scientific evidence as to their negative health impacts.

The reality is that monied interests lobbied aggressively against marijuana more than a century ago which led to its being made illegal in the United States. Corporate profits, combined with ignorance, ambition, and racism coalesced behind the power of the Hearst Empire to demand that marijuana be banned.

WASP westward expansion collided with Catholic Hispanic populations who preferred cannabis over other forms of social lubricants. Racism and religious intolerance seized on the Hispanic preference as a lever of oppression and the first laws against marijuana were all enacted throughout the west.

But the reality is that marijuana was once a mandatory crop in all of the original English settlements. Colonists were required to plant hemp for its many industrial uses which were vital for survival on a frontier.

I am astounded that government feels it has the right to intervene on such a granular level in the lives of its citizens. Marijuana laws are right up there with Prohibition, the Sodomy Statutes, Same Sex Restrictions and every other effort made to legislate morality. Neither Central nor State authority was vested with such discretionary powers at the founding of this nation. Thomas Jefferson, home vintner and brewer and hemp and tobacco grower, never would have envisioned the ridiculous intrusions that presently pass for Federal Authority in this once great Republic.

The sad reality of our Drug Statutes is that our society bears an inordinately high cost for their enforcement and the incarceration of its offenders. A citizen can be deprived of his liberty for years for possession of cannabis - and we pay for that in far too many ways. Politicians know that sounding tough on crime, enacting even more stringent drug laws, spending more on cops and prisons, and enflaming racial fears through the surrogate of drug laws translates into votes from the center and contributions from pharma, alcohol, and agribusiness among other constituencies.

I have no dog in this fight. I do not smoke weed and, because of my wound care drug therapy, I don't even drink alcohol these days. But I am astounded a man can be deprived of his liberty because of weed that is now legal in two jurisdictions. As a card carrying member of the Cato Institute I could not see this any other way, frankly.

I'm not saying I agree with people who are against legalization... I'm just saying I understand how a person with a more "socialistic" viewpoint can be against it. If we believe that government has to help care for it's people, then it's reasonable that the government should do thing to keep it's people safe. Speed limits, drugs limits, health insurance, social welfare programs, social security, etc. etc.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with this, but I understand the viewpoint.

What I don't understand are people who claim to be all about personal responsibility, but then in specific cases (like legalization), they are afraid of it.

Chico's, I don't mean to pick on you specifically, I've just heard this same viewpoint from several conservatives on television, and I've never really heard a logical reason for it. It's always some sort of rationalization.

[Lennys Tap]

What I don't understand are people who claim to be all about personal responsibility, but then in specific cases (like legalization), they are afraid of it.

Chico's, I don't mean to pick on you specifically, I've just heard this same viewpoint from several conservatives on television, and I've never really heard a logical reason for it. It's always some sort of rationalization.

Lots of people on both the left and right who choose situation ethics over what they would consider their core principles. For example, lefties are usually adamant about torture as long as its someone else's kids in danger, and righties are all about tough love and personal responsibility until it's their kid in trouble. Principled about the world, sure, but their own get a dispensation when it's convenient.

[Coleman]

Lots of people on both the left and right who choose situation ethics over what they would consider their core principles. For example, lefties are usually adamant about torture as long as its someone else's kids in danger, and righties are all about tough love and personal responsibility until it's their kid in trouble. Principled about the world, sure, but their own get a dispensation when it's convenient.

That's human nature.

It takes a rational, unemotional perspective to stick to ethical principles. Most people fall into situational ethics.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Lots of people on both the left and right who choose situation ethics over what they would consider their core principles. For example, lefties are usually adamant about torture as long as its someone else's kids in danger, and righties are all about tough love and personal responsibility until it's their kid in trouble. Principled about the world, sure, but their own get a dispensation when it's convenient.

Fair enough. We live in the real world, so I understand the nuance.

I guess it's hard for me to hear people so strident and consistent on some topics, but then complete 180 on others. It would be easier if people (specifically politicians and political commentators) admitted there was a middle ground (on 99% of topics) and then we can go from there.

But, middle ground doesn't get votes or viewers I suppose.

Yeah America!

[keefe]

But, middle ground doesn't get votes or viewers I suppose.

Viewers yes but the middle ground is always the battle ground.

[Spotcheck Billy]

what about that shooting 'eh?

[Benny B]

Viewers yes but the middle ground is always the battle ground.

Actually, that's not true at all.  Our political system has bred an environment where campaigning is not about swaying the opinions of voters in swing states, it's entirely about motivating people in swing states to vote.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Actually, that's not true at all.  Our political system has bred an environment where campaigning is not about swaying the opinions of voters in swing states, it's entirely about motivating people in swing states to vote.

I agree, its about turnout.

[Skatastrophy]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/19-year-old-charged-in-marquette-holdup-shooting-has-long-criminal-past-b99263187z1-258997261.html

[jsglow]

Developments (and some very bad guys).  Glad they're off the streets.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/19-year-old-charged-in-marquette-holdup-shooting-has-long-criminal-past-b99263187z1-258997261.html

Sorry.  Beat me by 30 seconds.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Glad they're off the streets.

For now.

[jsglow]

For now.

I'll bet for an extended time up in the big house.  We're way beyond a wallet grab.  Anyway, let's hope a limp wristed judicial system gets some backbone.  And let's also hope that Marquette privately makes its expectations known with the DA.

[swoopem]

I'll bet for an extended time up in the big house.  We're way beyond a wallet grab.  Anyway, let's hope a limp wristed judicial system gets some backbone.  And let's also hope that Marquette privately makes its expectations known with the DA.

Agreed. After reading that article these guys are some trouble makers and they need to be locked up.