Clinton's Views on Marijuana

[ClydeR]

Are Hillary Rodham Clinton's views on marijuana legalization evolving?

Clinton told a CNN town hall Tuesday that she sees the "benefits" of medical marijuana and wants to "wait and see what the evidence is" from the two states experimenting with legalizing cannabis for recreational use.

More... (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/06/17/hillary-clinton-marijuana-legalization/10720875/)


"At the risk of committing radical candor, I have to say I think we need to be very clear about the benefits of marijuana use for medicinal purposes," Clinton said during an interview with CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour.

Two points. First, Clinton is going to lose the law-and-order vote to the Republican candidate, who will certainly oppose anything of the kind no matter who he is, because of her overly permissive stance on this issue. Second, she likes the phrase "radical candor." Look for her to use it throughout the 2016 campaign.

[Latrinsorm]

All hail radical candor!

[Dwaar]

Every interview I watch with her, she never says anything. Every reply is, "It's a tough decision", "I think we should look at that", "I think some things could be done", "I believe that it could be done differently", "Everyone sees things differently".... etc, etc.

I'm trying to think of one solid reply she has given to a question, about what SHE would do.

[Androidpk]

What more info from Colorado does she need? Tax revenue is in the millions every month, crime rates have decreased, teen use has not increased.. she needs to grow some proverbial balls.

[subzero]

Every interview I watch with her, she never says anything. Every reply is, "It's a tough decision", "I think we should look at that", "I think some things could be done", "I believe that it could be done differently", "Everyone sees things differently".... etc, etc.

I'm trying to think of one solid reply she has given to a question, about what SHE would do.

What's the difference? They all lie and fail to do what they claim they will anyway.

[Dwaar]

What's the difference? They all lie and fail to do what they claim they will anyway.

True. Except one politician did do what he said he would, "fundamentally transform America".

Always wondered why people didn't examine that phrase more. Because to fundamentally change something, means there is something extremely wrong with what it was before.

[Latrinsorm]

What more info from Colorado does she need? Tax revenue is in the millions every month, crime rates have decreased, teen use has not increased.. she needs to grow some proverbial balls.Then again, crime rates decreased in the first year following Prohibition. I've warned you in the past about small sample sizes (and it has gone on your permanent record), another thing to beware is ignoring context.

[Warriorbird]

Then again, crime rates decreased in the first year following Prohibition. I've warned you in the past about small sample sizes (and it has gone on your permanent record), another thing to beware is ignoring context.

You're still sticking to attacking anybody's numbers but your own. It's okay. It's like your Lebron obsession.

[Latrinsorm]

I thought I was pointing out that Andy's argument led to a conclusion that is literally impossible; that prohibition increases and reduces crime. I couldn't possibly attack his numbers, because he didn't cite any.

[Warriorbird]

I thought I was pointing out that Andy's argument led to a conclusion that is literally impossible; that prohibition increases and reduces crime. I couldn't possibly attack his numbers, because he didn't cite any.

I thought you meant AFTER Prohibition, but you don't like that number, so nevermind.

[Latrinsorm]

Here's what Andy said: What more info from Colorado does she need? crime rates have decreased

Here's what I said: Crime decreased in the first year after Prohibition

Those are the same argument (what happened to crime in the first year after X?), and they come to the opposite conclusion. Therefore the argument is flawed.

.

Why specifically is the argument flawed? Because it fails to take into account a larger context, which is precisely the point I made about crime rates and Prohibition in the past. You people keep telling me I'm dismissing numbers while doing that very thing, it's driving me galleon.

[Androidpk]

Right, those numbers may well change in the future. Now what about tax revenue?

[Warriorbird]

Here's what Andy said: What more info from Colorado does she need? crime rates have decreased

Here's what I said: Crime decreased in the first year after Prohibition

Those are the same argument (what happened to crime in the first year after X?), and they come to the opposite conclusion. Therefore the argument is flawed.

.

Why specifically is the argument flawed? Because it fails to take into account a larger context, which is precisely the point I made about crime rates and Prohibition in the past. You people keep telling me I'm dismissing numbers while doing that very thing, it's driving me galleon.

You just do the same thing. You pick and choose the only arguments that can exist in your head and dismiss others offhand. You ignore possible alternative causes with great frequency.

[Latrinsorm]

Right, those numbers may well change in the future. Now what about tax revenue?I assumed that its increase was a given.
You just do the same thing. You pick and choose the only arguments that can exist in your head and dismiss others offhand. You ignore possible alternative causes with great frequency.Name one.

[Androidpk]

I assumed that its increase was a given.


What other relevant information does Hillary Clinton need then? Sounds like she's just too timid to come out in support for or against it.

[Latrinsorm]

The point of a balance sheet is that you have to look at assets and liabilities. Many people do run a pro-con analysis the way you describe: find one pro and it's a good thing, find one con and it's a bad thing... but this is rarely the whole picture.

[Androidpk]

The point of a balance sheet is that you have to look at assets and liabilities. Many people do run a pro-con analysis the way you describe: find one pro and it's a good thing, find one con and it's a bad thing... but this is rarely the whole picture.

Fair enough. What would be some examples of assets and liabilities looked at in regards to ending alcohol prohibition?

[Latrinsorm]

Fair enough. What would be some examples of assets and liabilities looked at in regards to ending alcohol prohibition?Just to be clear, you are referring specifically to the American Prohibition of the 20s?

[Androidpk]

Yes.

[Warriorbird]

Name one.

You came up with everything you possibly could other than Prohibition caused a whole criminal industry to spring up and the ending of Prohibition caused a loss of potential crime and profits for what it had spawned.

[Latrinsorm]

You came up with everything you possibly could other than Prohibition caused a whole criminal industry to spring up and the ending of Prohibition caused a loss of potential crime and profits for what it had spawned.If you jump down an open elevator shaft, then halfway down you get a text from Barack Hussein Obama, it's not the text that killed you.
Yes.Almost entirely assets. I've said it before, Prohibition gets unfair criticism but it was still a clumsy attempt. The key is that we can learn (and have learned) from that mistake, and prohibitions are now much more effective with much less of the backfire. You talk about medical treatment in another thread, look at the advances we've seen there: bloodletting to amputation to antibiotics to death panels.

[Warriorbird]

If you jump down an open elevator shaft, then halfway down you get a text from Barack Hussein Obama, it's not the text that killed you.

I'm not the "alternate theory" advocate here. I tore that right up with facts but you forget about it.

It's you defending "intelligent design" 2, which is funny given how now you're trying to protect science.

[Tgo01]

If you jump down an open elevator shaft, then halfway down you get a text from Barack Hussein Obama, it's not the text that killed you.

What if you're reaching out for a cable to grab onto to stop your fall but out of habit you reach for your phone when you hear the text and you miss the cable?

[Androidpk]

Prohibition didn't work then and it most certainly wouldn't work now.

[Gelston]

Prohibition didn't work then and it most certainly wouldn't work now.

I can draw a parallel, but even if MJ was legalized in the US it wouldn't stop shit. How many of you thing Cocaine or Meth should be legal? Bet it is a lot less. MJ accounts for a very small portion of cartel money.

During prohibition, alcohol was ran up the border from Mexico. When it was legalized again, hell, pot became illegal and that was the drug of choice to run. We'd have to make ever single substance in the US legal to get rid of the trade, and they'd still find some sorta shit.

[Androidpk]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/18/1300289/-Marijuana-legalization-hurting-Mexican-drug-cartels

[Gelston]

Yeah it hurts. They are losing a couple billion out of their 60 to 120 billion trade, most coming from cocaine and meth.

[Androidpk]

35-40% of their income is from marijuana. Yes they still make money from coke but I don't see what that has to do with legalizing cannabis.

[Gelston]

35-40% of their income is from marijuana. Yes they still make money from coke but I don't see what that has to do with legalizing cannabis.

No, it isn't.

[Gelston]

Cocaine is their largest mover. A trunk full of pot is worth how much? Not a lot. A trunk full of Coke is a lot more. Hell, they don't even move pot in their submarines. Coke is their biggest business by far. Any idiot can grow pot in their house. Any redneck can have a field of it.

Here is an interesting article. It is by Cracked, but it speaks miles... http://www.cracked.com/article_21257_5-insane-things-i-learned-about-drugs-as-undercover-agent.html

[Androidpk]

Before legalization in Washington and Colorado Mexico was shipping 40 million pounds of weed a year. That's over 60 billion $ worth.

[Gelston]

Before legalization in Washington and Colorado Mexico was shipping 40 million pounds of weed a year. That's over 60 billion $ worth.

So they were shipping more than cartels themselves make in a year right? No. 3 billion a year is what they are losing from those two. Their money comes from coke.

And yeah, I'll take an undercover agent's word about the cartels over the Daily kos.

And still, before any of that shit was illegal, and during prohibition, they made tons of money off illegal alcohol. Even if pot was a huge deal for them, they'd replace it as they have in the past.

[Androidpk]

Even if those numbers are right I still don't see what it has to do with legalizing marijuana. I don't see anyone trying to argue the merits of cocaine or heroine.

[Gelston]

Even if those numbers are right I still don't see what it has to do with legalizing marijuana. I don't see anyone trying to argue the merits of cocaine or heroine.

I was responding to a specific comment. You said prohibition didn't work then and it won't work now. Admittedly, I went on a tangent, but I was pointing out that prohibition had little to do with it. There will always be an illicit trade.

[Androidpk]

I was responding to a specific comment. You said prohibition didn't work then and it won't work now. Admittedly, I went on a tangent, but I was pointing out that prohibition had little to do with it. There will always be an illicit trade.

There will definitely always be illicit trade, which is why prohibition won't work. Making something illegal isn't enough to deter people. In this case it does more harm than good, far more.

[Gelston]

There will definitely always be illicit trade, which is why prohibition won't work. Making something illegal isn't enough to deter people. In this case it does more harm than good, far more.

And see, that is my disagreement. It doesn't do any more harm than good. It is the same. They will just find something else.

[Androidpk]

And see, that is my disagreement. It doesn't do any more harm than good. It is the same. They will just find something else.

I'm talking about the full picture.

[Gelston]

I'm talking about the full picture.

The full picture is that there is no full picture. It is a movie. It changes quickly.

[Androidpk]

I like cake.

[Gelston]

I like cake.

The cake is a lie.

[Androidpk]

The cake is a lie.


http://www.catehuston.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/cake-is-real.jpg (http://www.catehuston.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/cake-is-real.jpg)

[Thondalar]

How many of you thing Cocaine or Meth should be legal?



6696

[Thondalar]

And see, that is my disagreement. It doesn't do any more harm than good. It is the same. They will just find something else.

If everything was legal, they wouldn't have "something else".

[Flap]

If everything was legal, they wouldn't have "something else".

Sex slaves!

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not the "alternate theory" advocate here. I tore that right up with facts but you forget about it.I remember you linking information about 1919-1921 after I brought up information about 1900-1918. Is that what you're referring to?
What if you're reaching out for a cable to grab onto to stop your fall but out of habit you reach for your phone when you hear the text and you miss the cable?A human being can't grab an elevator cable as they're falling down a shaft, your hand would just shred. A completely plausible alternative is grabbing onto a vent that opens into the shaft, and even then it would be a white man's fault that you were in that situation to begin with, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANS.
Prohibition didn't work then and it most certainly wouldn't work now.The 20s version of prohibition would not. The 00s version is working and therefore it is reasonable to suppose it would work. You have more faith in today's hospitals than you would the hospitals of the 1920s, right? Same principle.
There will definitely always be illicit trade, which is why prohibition won't work. Making something illegal isn't enough to deter people. In this case it does more harm than good, far more.Making something illegal isn't enough to deter all people: some Americans still commit murder, for instance. A concerted and thoughtful government effort can still have a significant impact: consider how few Americans commit murder with rocket launchers or atomic weapons or caltrops.

[Tgo01]

A human being can't grab an elevator cable as they're falling down a shaft, your hand would just shred.

What if I had just started falling? Like literally the second I had started my descent down the elevator shaft? Or what if I were wearing gloves made out of kevlar and shit?

[Androidpk]

Or what if he had prosthetic hands because he masturbated so God damn much that he had to have his real hands replaced??

[Tgo01]

Or what if he had prosthetic hands because he masturbated so God damn much that he had to have his real hands replaced??

Yeah!

Wait.

[Latrinsorm]

What if I had just started falling? Like literally the second I had started my descent down the elevator shaft? Or what if I were wearing gloves made out of kevlar and shit?Then you wouldn't be halfway down the shaft, which was the parameter I set in the beginning. I hope you enjoyed your losing today, come back and cross me on this any time.

[Tgo01]

Then you wouldn't be halfway down the shaft, which was the parameter I set in the beginning.

How do you know how high this elevator shaft is? What if I fell down the shaft on the ground floor?

[Warriorbird]

Then you wouldn't be halfway down the shaft, which was the parameter I set in the beginning. I hope you enjoyed your losing today, come back and cross me on this any time.

A human with equipment could. But you're right. Unaided? Ha.

[Latrinsorm]

How do you know how high this elevator shaft is? What if I fell down the shaft on the ground floor?I am well versed in shafts.