legalized marijuana ... what will CAP do ?

[Eclipse]

Pretty sure you're wrong on this one. It's historic that it was voted legal in the states it was.

Pretty sure I'm not.  And further pretty sure this is nothing like DADT.

A few states populated by hipsters may have been historic from the perspective of the vote itself, but it's not indicative of the general
feeling in the country, nor is it going to change things at the Federal level.  I know a lot of my peers are tired of the conversations, but that
fatigue should not be construed as a change of attitude.

Medicinal use has been "legal" in CA for years, and abuses of the prescriptions are now common and common knowledge, that hasn't moved
the needle an iota at the Federal level, beyond the current administration deciding they will not enforce the laws as written.  A new, less liberal
administration could change that overnight.  Frankly, with all that is going on in the US and the world, I don't necessarily disagree with
the president picking his battles right now, but that doesn't change the law.

And considering that this is a state's rights discussion, one which could potentially change the balance of power at the most fundamental level,
it's not something the feds are just going to let happen without a fight.

Perhaps in the sheltered world of academia, where recreational use, and therefore the flaunting of the law, are apparently commonplace and encouraged, the idea is that the landscape is changing, but that's not, by a longshot the attitude in the "real" world, especially in states populated
by more people and less hipsters.

[PHall]

Medicinal use has been "legal" in CA for years, and abuses of the prescriptions are now common and common knowledge, that hasn't moved
the needle an iota at the Federal level, beyond the current administration deciding they will not enforce the laws as written.

That would be California and 13 or so other states.
(I'm too lazy to look up the exact number.)

[Eclipse]

Medicinal use has been "legal" in CA for years, and abuses of the prescriptions are now common and common knowledge, that hasn't moved
the needle an iota at the Federal level, beyond the current administration deciding they will not enforce the laws as written.

That would be California and 13 or so other states.
(I'm too lazy to look up the exact number.)

Some states have decriminalized its use, but not necessarily legalized it.  That's a big difference, especially for recidivists.

[abdsp51]

Either way being legal on the state level is different from being legal on the federal level.  Which has been pointed out, but lets look at it like this, would any of you feel comfortable allowing your child/cadet climb into a vehicle or aircraft if you had the suspicion that the operator was impaired by Marijuana? Let's say said person has an accident and was found under the influence of said marijuana who takes liability for it? At the end of the day we are funded primarily by tax payers dollars by the USAF and the AF policy is zero tolerance for substance abuse of any kind.  So until the laws change federally we should stick to a zero tolerance policy.  You want to toke up on your spare time, don't come to a meeting and operate corp equipment.  2B someone for it only if proven they are a user, suspend or limit activities until proven otherwise.

[RiverAux]

A few states populated by hipsters may have been historic from the perspective of the vote itself, but it's not indicative of the general
feeling in the country, nor is it going to change things at the Federal level. 

Actually, it is indicative of the general trend in public opinion on this issue: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

[Eclipse]

A few states populated by hipsters may have been historic from the perspective of the vote itself, but it's not indicative of the general
feeling in the country, nor is it going to change things at the Federal level. 

Actually, it is indicative of the general trend in public opinion on this issue: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

Fair enough, though the trending also somewhat supports my assertion that no change will be relevant to anyone's CAP career who
is reading this today.  The 18-29 year olds in favor tend to make a lot of noise, but have little political power, which is why the media
and social networks can make it appear that change is afoot, while those in actual power - 40+ - aren't interested in the conversation
except to look relevant to the hipsters.  OWS was very noisy and had little impact.

That will change as that generation ages and takes power, but, with age comes experience and maturity, and many will change their tune
as the common sense of real life conflicts with what the professors told them their first year of college. 

Assuming that curve follows, that's probably a 20 year evolution, ten at the minimum.

We also should not discount the military / industrial / law enforcement complex built up around this issue - that's not something that will
go quietly just because some people need a crunchy groove.  Big pharma wants in on the medicinal and recreational use, but they have
another bureaucracy to fight to get there.

Meanwhile people with common sense aren't interested to start with.

[sardak]

That would be California and 13 or so other states.
(I'm too lazy to look up the exact number.)

Really easy to find a table with the details. It's 18 plus DC (up one from when I posted the number 6 pages back).

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

Mike

[Майор Хаткевич]

If it becomes legal, then it will likely be handled in the same way alcohol is, however it's never going to be legal at the Federal level in this country in the lifetime of anyone reading this message today.

Just imagine the reefer madness that would begin...

[Nathan]

Perhaps in the sheltered world of academia, where recreational use, and therefore the flaunting of the law, are apparently commonplace and encouraged, the idea is that the landscape is changing, but that's not, by a longshot the attitude in the "real" world, especially in states populated
by more people and less hipsters.

Give me a break. The ONLY one of my college professors who talked about marijuana was a specialist in neurological pharmacology and toxicology, which gives him a LOT more credibility to speak on the subject than you.

The real difference is that my generation didn't grow up with ridiculous, misleading videos like this guiding our perceptions of the situation:

The terrible truth about marijuana (1951)

The fact is that, by definition, the conservative viewpoint is about "tradition" and "established culture", and the evidence simply doesn't support the traditional and established view on marijuana. Period. End of story. Done.

So IF this goes to the courts, and the federal government is forced to come up with evidence backing up its decision to keep marijuana illegal while allowing the sale of alcohol (and even tobacco), then it's going to be using an evidence that nobody in the scientific community has yet seen as far as the dangers of marijuana, and if they had that, they would have given it to me for my DDR presentations a long time ago so I have something more to say to cadets about it than, "It's illegal, and it will probably make you gain weight."

Either way being legal on the state level is different from being legal on the federal level.  Which has been pointed out, but lets look at it like this, would any of you feel comfortable allowing your child/cadet climb into a vehicle or aircraft if you had the suspicion that the operator was impaired by Marijuana? Let's say said person has an accident and was found under the influence of said marijuana who takes liability for it? At the end of the day we are funded primarily by tax payers dollars by the USAF and the AF policy is zero tolerance for substance abuse of any kind.  So until the laws change federally we should stick to a zero tolerance policy.  You want to toke up on your spare time, don't come to a meeting and operate corp equipment.  2B someone for it only if proven they are a user, suspend or limit activities until proven otherwise.

The argument differs not at all from alcohol. We don't have to allow for anyone to be impaired at any time to legalize the drug. We only have to put it under the same restrictions as alcohol.

If you would have a problem putting your cadet in an aircraft with a drunk pilot, you're completely sane. If you have a problem putting your cadet in an aircraft with a pilot who drank three days ago, you are probably a little overprotective. It's the same situation with marijuana. The fact that someone "smokes" doesn't say anything else than when you say someone "drinks." It says nothing about their current level of inebriation.

[JeffDG]

The courts have already made perfectly clear that federal drug laws, including MJ laws specifically, are entirely within the federal government's authority to prohibit.

Again, nobody is arguing that.

The point is that even some of my DEA friends believe that it's a "when", not "if" question regarding marijuana legalization now that the states are willing to challenge the federal government on it. This will bring out the need for evidence establishing why marijuana deserves to be classified at the same level of addictiveness and danger as heroin while alcohol is legalized.

Where are you getting legal advice?  The Congress does not need to do such justification.  They have, by law, designated THC in the same category as heroin.  They have successfully defended such laws multiple times, including in the face of state "medical" licenses.  It's done, they don't need to do it anymore.  Such policy justifications are the province of Congress, not the Courts.

[Eclipse]

Yep.

[JeffDG]

The fact that someone "smokes" doesn't say anything else than when you say someone "drinks." It says nothing about their current level of inebriation.

It does, however, say something about the individual's commitment to following the law of the land.  If they're willing to violate federal criminal law, what's the big deal with discarding administrative regulations from the FAA, or regulations promulgated by CAP.

[NCRblues]

the conservative viewpoint is about "tradition" and "established culture", and the evidence simply doesn't support the traditional and established view on marijuana. Period. End of story. Done.

I love liberal arguments. The liberal side is "tradition and established culture is wrong and needs to change because WE say so." The 2nd liberal argument is that "everyone does it a little, and it does not hurt like alcohol, so why not?"

These 2 arguments have failed when given over the general American populace time and time again. They make no sense. Change for change sake is beyond worthless, and no, not everyone has tried or does pot. Nathan, you live in one of the most conservative states in the union where you are in the very tiny minority of liberals. Kansas has one of the lowest drug use rates in the nation, and also one of the lowest crime rates, so the "established culture" seems to be working there...

[SARDOC]

Kansas has one of the lowest drug use rates in the nation, and also one of the lowest crime rates, so the "established culture" seems to be working there...

Kansas has a higher per capita crime rate than both states that just legalized Marijuana.  Is Marijuana really the problem impacting Violent or property crime rates in Kansas?

[Nathan]

I love liberal arguments. The liberal side is "tradition and established culture is wrong and needs to change because WE say so."

Actually, I said nothing about needing to change the established culture just because I say so (especially considering I'm to the right on at least one social issue). I said that if the evidence doesn't support what the traditional viewpoint claims to be true, then it's perhaps time to take another look. Traditional views aren't bad by default, but if they are based off of faulty beliefs as compared to what the real evidence says, then nobody is being helped by sticking with them.

The 2nd liberal argument is that "everyone does it a little, and it does not hurt like alcohol, so why not?"

I said nothing of the sort. I didn't make any main arguments about why pot SHOULD be legal, because that's outside the scope of how CAP is to deal with it (which you seem to have forgotten was the point of this thread). If I were to make a main argument, I would talk about the massive amount of taxpayer money spent on fighting and jailing the users of a drug that is less dangerous, potent, or addictive than most of the psychoactive drugs we can get legally, some without a prescription. But again, what I'm trying to illustrate is that the legalization of marijuana (and possibly some other recreational drugs) is likely to be a lot closer than you're allowing yourself to believe, and covering your ears isn't really a productive way of dealing with it.

These 2 arguments have failed when given over the general American populace time and time again. They make no sense. Change for change sake is beyond worthless

You see it as change for change's sake, but believe it or not, you CAN fix things that aren't broken, especially when it involves a lot of taxpayer money. The P51 was a pretty good fighter, and it wasn't broken, yet we found we could do better and tried it out anyway. It's insane to think you can't improve upon systems with redundancies and misbeliefs.

and no, not everyone has tried or does pot.

I honestly think you're imaging things based on what you think I believe. Please point out where I said anything that would remotely warrant that response.

Nathan, you live in one of the most conservative states in the union where you are in the very tiny minority of liberals. Kansas has one of the lowest drug use rates in the nation, and also one of the lowest crime rates, so the "established culture" seems to be working there...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is Latin for, "You just made the kind of fallacy that makes people not take any of your arguments seriously."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

[Eclipse]

I said nothing of the sort. I didn't make any main arguments about why pot SHOULD be legal, because that's outside the scope of how CAP is to deal with it (which you seem to have forgotten was the point of this thread). If I were to make a main argument, I would talk about the massive amount of taxpayer money spent on fighting and jailing the users of a drug that is less dangerous, potent, or addictive than most of the psychoactive drugs we can get legally, some without a prescription. But again, what I'm trying to illustrate is that the legalization of marijuana (and possibly some other recreational drugs) is likely to be a lot closer than you're allowing yourself to believe, and covering your ears isn't really a productive way of dealing with it.

Cite please: What drug can you obtain legally, without prescription, that is more psychoactive then marijuana?  And bringing prescription medications into the discussion is 100% irrelevant.

As to the cost of enforcement, that is caused by the lack of will to actually enforce the laws as written, along with politically motivated selective enforcement.  The drug war, like the immigration issue, is easily solvable, however it takes the full will of everyone who should be doing the enforcement
to actually be doing their jobs, without personal or political filter, but when you have a part of the population who value cheap labor / cheap fruit over following the law, they are effectively digging the holes under the fences themselves, and when you have a part of the population who value self-intoxication over common sense and their own personal well-being, then they are actively working against enforcement and costing us all billions.

"Main argument"?  You've made no bones that you don't feel marijuana use is a big deal, citing medical practitioners who use as some sort of golden example.  You also continue to compare it to other substances as if that is relevant.  Just because one potentially bad idea thing is already legal doesn't mean the courts or the legislature have a mandate to make things worse by adding to the pile of bad ideas.

Further to the comparison, there is absolutely no reason to use cannabis other then self-intoxication and impairment.  That's not to say that plenty of
people don't binge drink, especially in college, but there is a connoisseur component, and it is entirely possible and not uncommon to drink alcoholic beverages your entire life, in moderation, and never once even be buzzed, let alone drunk.  People don't smoke weed for the appreciation of the craftsmanship of a fine wine, they want to get stoned, and stoned quickly, that or their job at the mine isn't getting the lung cancer fast enough.  That fact alone means they have an impaired ability to make good judgement.

[Eclipse]

The real difference is that my generation didn't grow up with ridiculous, misleading videos like this guiding our perceptions of the situation:

You might as well educate us on what is misleading in the video.  It's typical of the era, but I don't see a lot in there that isn't, at it's core, true.

[Garibaldi]

Uh, marijuana is bad, mkay?

[PHall]

Uh, marijuana is bad, mkay?

Is it?

[AngelWings]

Uh, marijuana is bad, mkay?

Is it?

Per what was the cause of an accident in my neighborhood, my sisters life, her boyfriends life, and one of her friends who is about to make a mockery of herself on one of those "Jerry" type shows: Yes.