Legalizing Marijuana: Why Joe Biden Should Listen to Latin America’s Case

TIME.com ^ | 03/06/12 | Tim Padgett

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Cannabis never caught on to Westerners.

And for most of those centuries when it was busy not catching on, it was legal - so where's the worry in relegalizing it?

One of those cultures looks and lives like spaced out stoners

How so?

[aruanan]

Cannabis never caught on to Westerners.

Ever hear of California?

[ansel12]

Not re-legalise.

Like all laws, the law doesn’t get written until the problem arises.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

And for most of those centuries when it was busy not catching on, it was legal - so where's the worry in relegalizing it?

Not re-legalise.

Like all laws, the law doesn’t get written until the government claims that a problem arises.

There, now that's correct.

[ansel12]

If you think America has always been a dictatorship, or whatever you think led to laws, such as the anti-polygamy laws in the distant past.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Since you didn't post a complete sentence, I can only guess at your meaning. I said nothing about "dictatorship;" I pointed out that the existence of a law does not mean that an actual problem ever existed (as you seemed to imply) - a good recent example being laws passed to address "manmade climate change."

[ansel12]

Polygamy is a better example, I don’t think that we have made “global warming” illegal, yet.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

So by "the law doesn’t get written until the problem arises" you meant the law against action X doesn’t get written until action X has been observed to take place?

Probably true in most cases - but how does your claim "Not re-legalise" follow from that? Any action is legal before a law against it is passed.

[ansel12]

So by "the law doesn’t get written until the problem arises" you meant the law against action X doesn’t get written until action X has been observed to take place?

75 years or so a law was passed because a problem was growing among American youth, it was reaching into the mainstream youth and it finally had to be addressed, I don't know why you phrased it that way, as though it had merely been suddenly "observed".

I don't know that homosexual marriage was legal before it is made illegal.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

So by "the law doesn’t get written until the problem arises" you meant the law against action X doesn’t get written until action X has been observed to take place?

Probably true in most cases - but how does your claim "Not re-legalise" follow from that?

75 years or so a law was passed because a problem was growing among American youth, it was reaching into the mainstream youth and it finally had to be addressed,

If you're referring to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, it's very much open to debate that there was in fact a "problem" rather than simply Reefer Madness hysteria. We can agree that marijuana was in fact being used and was known to be in use.

You still haven't answered the most important question: How does your claim "Not re-legalise" follow from that?

I don't know why you phrased it that way, as though it had merely been suddenly "observed".

I meant simply that for activity X to be known to be a problem, it must first be known to be taking place.

Any action is legal before a law against it is passed.

I don't know that homosexual marriage was legal before it is made illegal.

Bad example - civil marriage is an act of government, and as such no kind of civil marriage (homosexual, polygamous, whatever) is legal unless and until government says so. The use of marijuana, which was/is an act of individuals rather than government, certainly was legal until government said otherwise.

[ansel12]

That was a stoner’s post.

Even Western Civilization has known about the use of marijuana “taking place” for thousands of years, we just didn’t indulge, and we condemned it. Fringes and dregs of Western culture have been indulging in such drugs since ancient times, it just never entered the mainstream until recently.

As far as homosexual “marriage”, in America we have had both religious, and civil marriage for centuries, we never needed to address making laws against this homosexual agenda, until recently.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

So by "the law doesn’t get written until the problem arises" you meant the law against action X doesn’t get written until action X has been observed to take place?

Probably true in most cases - but how does your claim "Not re-legalise" follow from that?

75 years or so a law was passed because a problem was growing among American youth, it was reaching into the mainstream youth and it finally had to be addressed,

If you're referring to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, it's very much open to debate that there was in fact a "problem" rather than simply Reefer Madness hysteria. We can agree that marijuana was in fact being used and was known to be in use.

You still haven't answered the most important question: How does your claim "Not re-legalise" follow from that?

*STILL* no answer to this simple question.

Any action is legal before a law against it is passed.

I don't know that homosexual marriage was legal before it is made illegal.

Bad example - civil marriage is an act of government, and as such no kind of civil marriage (homosexual, polygamous, whatever) is legal unless and until government says so. The use of marijuana, which was/is an act of individuals rather than government, certainly was legal until government said otherwise.

Even Western Civilization has known about the use of marijuana “taking place” for thousands of years,

So we agree on that point.

we just didn’t indulge, and we condemned it.

Yet there were no laws against it, so it was by definition legal.

Fringes and dregs of Western culture have been indulging in such drugs since ancient times, it just never entered the mainstream until recently.

As far as homosexual “marriage”, in America we have had both religious, and civil marriage for centuries, we never needed to address making laws against this homosexual agenda, until recently.

We still haven't passed any laws AGAINST homosexual marriage (although we have passed laws against state courts forcing it on states, and against states being forced to recognize other states' homosexual marriages). As I said, no kind of civil marriage is legal unless and until government says so.