http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...ate-more-crime

For someone who supposedly has done "recent research" the lack of citations or evidence in that piece is concerning. It's simply all speculation laced with qualifiers.

We should prbly outlaw more harmless stuff then.

So one piece on the unintended consequences of decriminalizing/legalizing/regulating ALL drugs.

That's your "studies" on the "financial" implications of legalizing weed?

Pretty much yeah.

Appreciate the honesty

Sure, for the short term gang bangers may resort to armed robbery, but having happy repeat customers is a much better business model. Legalization of drugs, just like the ending of alcohol prohibition, would dry up gang funding, leading to less turf war and violent crime. Plenty of other benefits as well. https://www.aclu.org/other/against-drug-prohibition

Portugal decriminalized personal use drugs 15 years ago. Lots of outlets have done pieces on the results.

https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-y...ing#.ilMMFJTBK

https://news.vice.com/article/ungass...weed-to-heroin

http://www.newsweek.com/greenwald-wh...g-drugs-349992

"Appease the gangs"

Pretty good slogan for criminalization

So your multiple studies was an oped in the NYT? All the lulz.

Do you know what oped means? And how that relates to your assertion of multiple studies?

Hint: The purpose of a study is to objectively prove a hypothesis true or false. Objectively bro. Objectively.

Ras Bros motto: "You're simpletons and you created Trump. At least I'm not an ******* sniffing my own farts."

Maybe he read it twice so that equals multiple studies.

He always studies the tough stuff.

Edward G. Bratz, esq

yup

Just skimmed the last 50 posts of so and may have missed it but...

You all are missing what I think is a huge opportunity related to marijuana legalization (as you argue the merits of it). The truth is that legalization is a popular platform that cuts across demographics in a different way than any other current issue.

Uneducated whites, millennials, minorities, educated whites, etc all favor legalization. Last I saw it literally passed everywhere it was on the ballot this year.

I think whichever major party first embraces the platform will have a huge advantage and the issue is one that will actually drive votes. With Sessions likely Sessioning the next four years, the dems have a huge opportunity to create this as a platform and actually move the needle with a single issue.

Curious what others think.

I think it's also true of gay rights, which the dems largely got on board with in many ways during Obama's term and look where that's gotten us

Really stupid... No offense, but people who smoke weed, it is not a top 100 issue to vote on for president or any important seat in a state.

Is DrunkIrish, DodgerIrish's alter ego?

I know. I'm like the Andrea Bargnani of troll defense.

Look at the dates.

I'd be his.

I Know you're a troll but really not a top 100 issue? Coming from downstate IL (with similar demographics to the rest of the rust belt which drove this election), I don't think you could be more wrong. Not sure it's relevant, but I am not a smoker myself.

I'm not a troll and I do smoke and I just cast a vote to legalize weed in my state. I have never considered a politicians position on marijuana relevant and I think my friends who smoke would agree with me.

yeah, i think pot legalisation is important because it reduces crime, destroys gangs and keep millions of people out of jail worldwide (and pot is cool too but you can always buy it anyway), but seeing social media focus so much on that instead of on black people being able to vote and millions of immigrants having their lives ruined is a little depressing.

i think there's still a stigma to it. it's popular but anyone that gets too close to it will be seen more negatively. like gary Johnson became the pothead candidate that even people that support legalisation couldnt take seriously (that wasnt only about pot but it contributed). i think there's still a danger in embracing it rather than tolerating it.

Gary Johnson became the Aleppo/sticking his tongue out candidate. Marijuana want even in the discussion.

Expanding on my earlier post. If you support the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, I am not going to be able to convince you to switch sides by telling you why your party is bad or why my party is good. There are too many entrenched feelings that have brought you to the point of supporting the party that you do, that they cannot be swayed by a complete attack against what you support without causing you to get defensive. The same holds true if I am trying to convince you of supporting a different candidate than one you have chosen to support. If I attack the candidate directly, you will become defensive and more entrenched in your position.

On the other hand, if I talk to you about an idea and provide sound reasoning and backing to my thought process and why I support a single idea, I have a chance to convince you to my side. Over time, if I am successful in this enough times your world view begins to change. The candidates you choose to support begin to change, and your belief that you support a particular political party begins to change.

That is a big part of why this election and politics in recent history have become such a dumpster fire. We've stopped discussing ideas and instead attack people or parties. This isn't to say that people or parties don't do anything wrong, rather that it is an ineffective way to persuade someone to come around to your point of view. We've become so entrenched in our sides that we cannot work with the other for progress.

I plan to continue further discussion piece by piece like this, because to write everything all at once would be a book. I hope it sparks some discussion in here, but if not I'll continue to write to no one.