The Justice Department enforcing pot laws

1) Holder did not legalize marijuana nationwide. Late in the Obama presidency, Obama and Holder decided to focus the Justice Department's resources on the states where pot was still illegal, and to de-prioritize enforcement in states which had legalized it. That's a pretty far cry from "legalized pot nationwide," as you put it. Holder never "blocked enforcement." As you can see in this link, Obama still managed to prosecute some people EVEN in states where pot was legal:

https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/11/medic…

2) Most voters actually do support legalizing marijuana. The country is divided. But it's not a priority, even to people who want to legalize it. Hence it remains illegal.

3) Where can you be arrested for smoking tobacco in America? Did I miss something? And the drinking age is not a state to state issue anymore: in the 80s the Reagan administration told all the states to raise their drinking age to 21 or they would forfeit federal highway money. All the states complied.

4) The DOJ absolutely has the legal right to decide where to focus resources. And the president absolutely has the right to reclassify marijuana or to remove it from the drug schedule entirely if he so chooses. So it's not entirely Congress' responsibility. It is a Schedule 1 drug, which means that the government believes it has no medical value. The DOJ and the DEA say that we shouldn't reschedule it without FDA clinical trials; FDA clinical trials are illegal for Schedule 1 drugs, so it's a Catch-22. But the President can always reclassify it, or the DOJ can change priorities to protect users and sellers in states where it is already legal, or Congress can outright legalize it.

5) You said "My real issue is that currently there are no potency regulations for edibles, smoke-ables nor intoxication standards..." Really? That's your issue? How exactly are you a libertarian if you think we need potency regulations and intoxication standards? News flash: being a libertarian means more than just hating The Establishment and the Federal Government.

I agree with points in both discussions above, but not all. My perspective is that of a very infrequent alcohol drinker and one who has never used pot.

The loudest voices in the country want pot legalized and the trend is increasingly in that direction. I believe that it will be legalized nationwide within 5-10 years. As a non-user I’d rather it wouldn’t be legalized, but I’m pragmatic enough to recognize that it will be.

I have somewhat of a libertarian bent also, but there are times where legal restrictions are necessary. In the case of alcohol, for example, there is clear scientific basis for driving and workplace restrictions on alcohol use. In the case of pot similar scientific evidence is lacking. And, as BHF points out, the determination of such scientific evidence can not be obtained because any meaningful studies can not currently be performed due to laws against possession of pot.

Most people believe,based only on anecdotal evidence, that pot is less harmful and less dangerous than alcohol. It may well be. However, everything is toxic, i.e., harmful at some level. Alcohol is known to cause cancer, and known cancer-causing agents are usually restricted in their handling and distribution in some way. But alcohol isn’t restricted in the same way because the level of carcinicity is fairly low, and people want their alcohol too much to care. Pot will have some level of toxicity, but we can’t currently determine that.

Similarly with the behavioral effects of alcohol and pot. Anecdotal claims that pot will not impair driving reflexes, which I’ve heard quite a few times, may very well be bullshit. I believe there should be studies of pot to determine blood THC levels that do not impair reflexes for driving or workplace safety. And then those levels should be promulgated as limits analogous to the common blood alcohol limit of 0.08%.

As I said above, pot will be legalized relatively soon. Right now Congress should get off their asses and pass a law to allow scientific studies on pot. Law enforcement clearly has better things to do than chase down pot users. A return to the Holder approach is probably appropriate.

Send Trucidos in !

@Array said

"As a non-user I’d rather it wouldn’t be legalized"

What does being a non-user have to do with it? I don't use it either. I actually believe that smoking pot can damage the lungs because of the potential for inhaling particulate matter. But I still want to legalize it. I don't know what to say about people who only want to legalize things that they themselves engage in.

"Right now Congress should get off their asses and pass a law to allow scientific studies on pot."

It would be a lot easier for the President to reclassify it himself. That's an executive prerogative, too. It doesn't make sense to put all the blame on Congress, especially since President Trump once publicly said that we should end the Drug War... in a speech he gave almost 30 years ago!

"... there is clear scientific basis for driving and workplace restrictions on alcohol use..."

If you believe that employers shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow their employees to smoke weed and that customers shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves whether to patronize a business where the workers smoke weed... well, that's not very libertarian. And neither is saying that you don't want it legalized merely because you don't partake.

I've heard a lot of strange stuff from self-described libertarians on TUSCL. One guy said he believes that child molesters and drug dealers should be publicly executed without a trial. Others are against immigration. Another guy said he believes that a lack of regulation caused the Great Depression and that we should impose tariffs on imports to punish other nations that impose tariffs on American goods. These are all perfectly legitimate positions to take. But they are not even remotely libertarian. Randommember claims that TUSCL is overrun by what he calls "Randoids." Well, if that's so, I have yet to meet any. Some smart thoughtful people, but few actual libertarians.

I aee lots of bla bla bla here

Most anything in MODERATION can be OK. Enforcing moderation is the issue.

Congress should legalize it, tax it, then restrict it so people aren't smoking in cars while driving nor in bars, restaurants, concerts, and clubs unless that club or bar has a special designation as pot friendly. I'm not a user nor smoker and don't plan to be but don't want to fail a drug test where it's illegal because I inhaled too much second hand smoke somewhere. I'd rather not inhale any smoke. Congress should be doing a lot more but can't agree on hardly anything. I believe pot does help some people with severe medical issues as well. Congress should also drop all the strip,club zoning laws if a club existed in the location in prior years instead of shutting down clubs across the nation. Let individual cities set up zoning laws instead of doing state or national laws. It's the local residents who should be able to decide what they will allow and where. If one city in the south wants to be strip club USA, let them. They could also have a church right next door if people want something to confess in a morning service although most churches and strip clubs don't operate at the same time.