4/20 Day:Tax and Legalize Marijuana

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 05:20:00 AM EST
Tags: marijuana reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

It's 4/20 day, also known as Marijuana Freedom Day, celebrated around the world by marijuana users and those who want to see the end to criminalization of its use.

Also today, NORML launches a new advertisement for 4/20 on Times Square’s largest electronic billboard calling out New York City politicians and law enforcement for having one of the highest—and most racially disparate—cannabis arrest rates in the United States. The advertisement will run 18 times a day until late May, and will be seen by an expected 1.5 million Times Square visitors.

California will be front and center this year, as marijuana legalization will be on the ballot. If you'd like to help them, go on over to TaxCanabis and make a donation.

The War on Drugs is a failure. Let's bring it to an end.

< Commercializing the Oklahoma City Bombing | Will The SEC's Case Against Goldman Be Difficult To Win? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

4/20 Day:Tax and Legalize Marijuana | 15 comments (15 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Call 'em out NORML... (none / 0) (#3)
by kdog on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:51:06 AM EST

for a supposedly liberal enlightened city we've got a marijuana policy from the dark ages. I'm living proof...chained to a bench for hours over maybe .002 grams aka a roach.

Kristen Davis for Gov! The P-Squared Platform...let's get this puppy movin' in an enlightened liberty-friendly fiscally-sound direction. Lets add casinos to the platform and become the real tourism mecca of America.

Enough of my pipe dreams...enjoy the holiday everybody:)

Not to Rain on Anyone's Parade but... (none / 0) (#4)
by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:49:14 AM EST

April 20th, 420 is also Hitler's Birthday.
------------------------------------------

Here is an issue I wish someone would address. As liberals we are pushing California's, or any other states, right to legalize and tax a substance the federal government considers illegal. Basically we are are arguing to ignore Federal law in the best interest of the state and/or it's inhabitants.

Great, well except for the fact that is the same line of reasoning the various state AG's are suing the Federal government in regards to HCR.

Their argument is the Feds cannot mandate insurance for everyone, and our argument is they can not mandate that a substance is illegal.

Someone smarter than I help me please explain why one arguement is considered ridiculous and the other arguement is considered valid. I realize they aren't the same, but they both deal with state's rights and I cannot seem to understand how the same people, on either side, can take one stand for one purpose and an opposite stand for another purpose.

Am I missing something ?

The joys of libertarian leanings... (none / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:20:39 AM EST

you avoid such ideological knots...the state has no right to forbid the use of any intoxicants, nor the right to mandate you to buy crappy insurance.

Let freedom ring, so what if its a little messy...it is still glorious.


What About Good Insurance ? (none / 0) (#6)
by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:50:06 PM EST

Kidding, but your view doesn't count because you aren't arguing one or the other like most, you want neither.

I happen to be one of the unfortunates that think mandated insurance is great, but so is ignoring federal drug laws. Ideological knot is where I am at this moment in time.


Look at it this way... (none / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 04:53:20 PM EST

it is the duty of a patriot to disobey unjust laws, you just happen to be of the opinion the insurance mandate is a just law, while marijuana prohibition is unjust. To think the insurance mandate unjust doesn't have to be a ridiculous argument, just a differing one.

Hope that helps ya get untied:)


Who decided what are unjust laws (none / 0) (#8)
by nyjets on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:20:55 PM EST

If everyone stopped obeying laws that they think are 'unjust' all laws will be displayed and you wind up with anarchy.


It is for each conscience... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 08:39:36 AM EST

to decide for itself...there are worse things than anarchy, like tyranny for example.


You Are Assuming That All People... (none / 0) (#10)
by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:11:41 AM EST

Have a conscience or at a minimum, a descent conscience. I would argue that NAMBLA doesn't agree with minimum age requirements for consent. Should they go with their conscience and decide for themselves ?

You can not have anarchy, it's abstract, like world peace. Neat in theory, but without some from of common rule/law, anarchy would become tyranny. Because at it's heart, tyranny is anarchy for a select few at the expense of the mass.


Abstract like representative democracy? (none / 0) (#11)
by kdog on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:31:27 AM EST

most of the isms look good on paper, they all s*ck in practice...damn human beings being involved and all.

Should they go with their conscience and decide for themselves?

Again, that is up to each individual to decide, and of course all actions have consequences. Luckily everybody outside of the NAMBLA freaks does not view age of consent laws as unjust. Though even those can be unjust...in cases of the 19 year old dating a 16 year old and such.


Bored at Work so Chew on This. (none / 0) (#12)
by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:54:40 AM EST

Right, but you were suggesting "it is the duty of a patriot to disobey unjust laws". Who determines the definition of un-just, because by your definition, that would also define the patriot.

And as far as representative democracy being abstract, I disagree, it's not perfect, but even with all the dirty shenanigans of Bush II, that democracy did things that were remarkable. You may not like some of those things, but in one day this country did a 180. I am not suggesting we are anywhere near perfect, but the representative democracy did something few other political systems can. We changed directions and in human terms, we did it overnight. You don't have to agree with the ruling class of yesteryear or today, but representative democracy does, for the most part, represent the masses.

Well except for the libertarians, but that is kind of the point, government almost by definition cannot represent libertarians. Government does what the private sector can not do, and they deliver mail too.


: Each individual (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:28:58 PM EST

must decide if a law is unjust, and the individuals of the future decide if said individual is a patriot or a common criminal.
For the record, I'm no anarchist or even a hardcore dogmatic libertarian...just a left leaner very turned on by libertarian thought. I agree government serves a purpose, and representative democracy, as lacking in true representation as ours is, is the probably the best system going. There is just far too little respect afforded to individual liberty in our representative democracy, and we're headed further in the wrong direction. We could add heaping portions of individual liberty to our country by reigning in the state, and still be nowehere near a descent into anarchy my friend...just my two cents.

I disagree (none / 0) (#14)
by nyjets on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:35:29 PM EST

Anarchy and tyranny are horrible. Both are interchangeable.


Both may be horrible... (none / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:49:54 PM EST

but you can't tell me with a straight face that anarchy wouldn't be more fun and exciting:)


No way (none / 0) (#16)
by nyjets on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:42:31 PM EST

I would find anarchy to be a horrible and disgusting. It would entail people doing whatever they want. There is no way I would find anarchy to be fun an exciting.
Honestly, as much as I hate guns, I would own as many guns as possible and look at everybody as a potential enemy in anarchy.
(And before you say it, a tyrany would be just as bad IMO. Merely different from anarchy.)


: Don't you like doing what you want? (none / 0) (#17)
by kdog on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 03:27:29 PM EST

I know I do. Being forced to do what I don't want to do, otoh...