In a Nail Biter, Denver Voters Say Yes to Psilocybin Magic Mushrooms: Psychedelic Decriminalized by 2,000 Votes | The shrooms won. City cops are supposed to ignore mushrooms if they find them, and the DA isn't supposed to spend money to prosecute. In other words: no one will go to jail for fungus.

submitted by Orangutan from therooster.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

More laws = Less freedom

Decriminalization = I won't be murdered for smoking the kush or growing it how I please

Legalization with cronyist ideologues = It's not decriminalized stupid, we just legalized it under our rules, regulations, and ever-increasing fees. Don't pay them, then we will extort or arresst you.

Now decriminalization is great, but legalization needs to be adequately moderated and written into law by the locals and community, not by corporate lobbyists and thr state in order to centralize more control over marijuana.

Yes, more laws that inhibit an individual's god given rights to self-determination. Laws that merely bear the fruits of a rotted fig tree, these laws, are counter to liberty and self-determination, they, instead centralize state control, expand tax codes, and add on more fees for every little thing you do.

Obviously, you didn't understsamd my post. DECRIMINALIZATION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS LEGALIZATION. I'm for out right decriminalizing marijuana for a competitive market to spring up locally, everywhere. Decriminalization means, you will not be arrested, unlike legalization, where if you don't pay you monstrous fees for growing a few plants, "say hello to the SWAT Team."

I think, ZOMBI, you have it backwards. Please, explain my fascist thinking? Is it facsist to NOT what centralization of power through legalization with obvious cathes, but I instead want OUTRIGHT decriminalization of marijuana. Not sure what you're not getting?

And to top it off, the reductio ab absurdum statement at the end. As if my rational disallows me to vote. Well guess what, the voting system is rigged nationally. I'll vote locally, in my community, but screw the people at the top.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Decriminalization = I won't be murdered for smoking the kush or growing it how I please

Decriminalization means you cannot produce or sell the item. So, no you cannot grow your own weed, you can just own it. This still gives the government power to arrest you for growing a plant in your back yard and also gives the cartels (who rape, murder, and torture thousands) power.

Legalization with cronyist ideologues = It's not decriminalized stupid, ....

That's true of literally anything legalized, it's unavoidable if you live within the USA. I'm sorry bud, but if you don't like it then leave. Also, how horrible to have standards and practices! I can't just sell you bunk weed and I have to adhere to regulations?! Oh the humanity! I'm guessing we should go back to the days when the meat industry literally cost you an arm and a leg to work within as well.

Now decriminalization is great, but legalization needs to be adequately moderated and written into law by the locals and community, not by corporate lobbyists

Then fight against lobbying laws, don't spread this bullshit about legalization. Your problem is with lobbying, which I wholeheartedly agree with, yet your misconstruing it with legalization when they're two completely separate issues.

DECRIMINALIZATION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS LEGALIZATION. I'm for out right decriminalizing marijuana for a competitive market to spring up locally, everywhere. Decriminalization means, you will not be arrested, unlike legalization, where if you don't pay you monstrous fees for growing a few plants, "say hello to the SWAT Team."

Again, you don't understand what you're talking about. Decriminalization means you CANNOT FORM A MARKET AROUND IT because you can't sell it or buy it! You can only own it, which again, provides criminals, cartel members, gangsters, and every other scumbag a market to profit off of.

Please, explain my fascist thinking? Is it facsist to NOT what centralization of power through legalization with obvious cathes, but I instead want OUTRIGHT decriminalization of marijuana. Not sure what you're not getting?

Because you misunderstand your own argument and you don't understand what decriminalization actually means. It changes NOTHING about the current system and only benefits those who already own weed. You can still get sent to prison for selling large quantities, you can still go to prison for buying weed. You're still giving the police and in turn the government the vast majority of power over the situation.

My statement at the end, while slightly immature, is implying that you are uninformed about how this works and you should not vote because of that. I'm saying you are holding back progress and keeping things largely the same by voting the way I predict you'll vote.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Interesting. I admit I was uninformed regarding decriminalization. Of course my argument still stands that legalization still sets in stone laws on licensure, taxation.l, fee measures, etc., for centralized control. There's no doubting that.

Decriminalization should properly include the selling of a plant, like any other plant, as it was hundreds of years ago. But their junk legal definitions for terms has changed their meanings to their opposite.

Yes, so we are in agreement, thanks for correcting me. I still think marijuana should be outright decriminalized through legislation from ALL activities. Legalization is great, if the locals and community can play their game. Meaning decentralization; the power into the hands of the community, rather than legalization that merely centralized something.

My state legalized marijuana recently, and although, like you've said, it is a step forward, it also could be the final step. That step simply increased prices, implented harsaher regulations, ever expanded fees and rules, centralized control, gave some monopoly power to corporatists, making it hard to start up a smaller bussiness. Basically, legalization in many states l, if, the legislation isn't looked through with a fine toothed comb could be detrimental to liberty annd decentralization

[–]Zombi 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, I'm glad you can see my point now. I'm all for decriminalization of all drugs tbh, for reasons I've already listed. I don't think it's a bad thing at all, but I think legalization is the ultimate goal.

I don't want monopolization over the marijuana industry either and I'll fight right alongside you for laws that allow us regular Joe's to open up small businesses in that market. I can understand your worries on that front, but that's why we need to focus on the actual issue: lobbying (something I'm vehemently against. It's basically a legal bribe and it's corrupt as hell).

I completely understand your worries about over-regulation within the industry as well. I agree; we should be cautious of the laws introduced and "go over them with a fine toothed comb" because as you've stated: huge companies will be looking to stomp out any and all competition through standards that smaller companies just cannot compete with (such as high fees for licensing or expensive materials required to be up to standard as an example). I'm not completely against regulation, though. I feel it's necessary to protect the consumer and the workers within any industry (see the 1920's meat industry for an example of how no regulations can harm and even kill people). I understand your fears of over-regulation and how harmful that can be for small business, but the solution isn't to keep it decriminalized, it's to fight to create a system that benefits small business and the consumer equally, while reigning in the larger corporations to avoid monopolies.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

huge companies will be looking to stomp out any and all competition through standards that smaller companies just cannot compete with...

That's a cronyists idea of a faux-free market. Now when libertairans or classical liberals even mention free market capitalism people think they are referring to the neoliberal idea of free markets. Regulation is needed to curtail over-regulation of small businesses as well as making it virtuously impossible to create a monopoly that actively infringes on an individuals right to the liberties he is endowed with upon birth. God's law and common law, something the state despises for its people to understand and utilize to their benefit will be suppressed by them till death. Hence, why they have ridded the teachings of these fundamental laws.

EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID I AGREE WITH. When I refer to a free market, I'm referring to the classical liberal stance, not the neoliberal one. However, does it really matter when the regulators ARE bought off by the cronyists? It is a revolving door. People claim Trump deregulated certain sectors of the markets and the economy but in reality they regulated it for themselves. As the regulators have obvious conflicts of interests. They simply just change words to lawfully mean something else, and this is what confuses almost everyone who does not have an iota of knowledge concerning law.