Big government with marijuana legal vs. small government with marijuana illegal

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The former of course. The type of "big government" libertarians and teabaggers whine about is usually harmless anyway, it's typically just some more bureaucrats who end up not really doing anything. More local governments which they consider far less evil are often FAR greater threats to freedom.

[dead0man]

Our current Big Govt is doing a horrible job of keeping us away from the pot, small govt would be even worse at it (by design).  So the second one, easy.

[opebo]

I don't care about marijuana, and the idea that government can be 'big' or 'small' is just a misunderstanding of how society works.

[tpfkaw]

The latter is an oxymoron.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The later of course.


The reason is that in the first situation we have a big gov't and only one for sure freedom, the freedom to be a pothead. In the second one, we have a small gov't but only one for sure restriction, that is you can't possess or use pot. Considering this and the fact that I despise marijuana, the later is more "free" in my opinion.

[King]

The later of course.


The reason is that in the first situation we have a big gov't and only one for sure freedom, the freedom to be a pothead. In the second one, we have a small gov't but only one for sure restriction, that is you can't possess or use pot. Considering this and the fact that I despise marijuana, the later is more "free" in my opinion.

I don't understand this whole "more freedom" business, anyway.  Is there anything anyone here wants to do that the government is keeping you from doing?

In a smaller government with illegal marijuana, I don't think I'd have any more freedom than I do right now.

[Dgov]

Do you honestly think the ability to light up is worth more than every other possible issue combined?

[Frink]

Big Government so that they have the power to slap a tax on it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The latter is an oxymoron.

So you think that just because someone can't smoke their weed doesn't mean that in general, the government is small? is the existence of small government solely dependent upon whether someone can do that? What about taxes? No matter how low they are, you're not a free person because you can't smoke marijuana? What about the Patriot Act? If that were abolished to kingdom come, you still wouldn't notice because your freedom solely depends on the legality of marijuana? Is that issue somehow above the debates about regulations and other personal liberties?

[tpfkaw]

The latter is an oxymoron.

So you think that just because someone can't smoke their weed doesn't mean that in general, the government is small? is the existence of small government solely dependent upon whether someone can do that? What about taxes? No matter how low they are, you're not a free person because you can't smoke marijuana? What about the Patriot Act? If that were abolished to kingdom come, you still wouldn't notice because your freedom solely depends on the legality of marijuana? Is that issue somehow above the debates about regulations and other personal liberties?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, etc.

If you don't have the freedom to put whatever you want into your own body, you are ipso facto* not living in a country with a "small government."

You can have smaller government with continuing prohibition, but you cannot have small government.

*(Second time I've used that phrase today).

[dead0man]

The later of course.


The reason is that in the first situation we have a big gov't and only one for sure freedom, the freedom to be a pothead. In the second one, we have a small gov't but only one for sure restriction, that is you can't possess or use pot. Considering this and the fact that I despise marijuana, the later is more "free" in my opinion.

I don't understand this whole "more freedom" business, anyway.  Is there anything anyone here wants to do that the government is keeping you from doing?

In a smaller government with illegal marijuana, I don't think I'd have any more freedom than I do right now.

Some posibilities:
A.easier to open a business
2.hire a lady (or dude) to do dirty things to you without having to skirt the law and the worries that comes with that
III.less taxes paid, thus more money to do what you want to do with it
etc...etc

[King]

Do you honestly think the ability to light up is worth more than every other possible issue combined?

Again, I ask, what are these other freedoms I'm missing out on that are worth sacrificing a toke?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The latter is an oxymoron.

Then I guess most of the Tea Party are not for small government.

[tpfkaw]

The latter is an oxymoron.

Then I guess most of the Tea Party are not for small government.

Nope.  Only a very small minority of people are for small government.

[Dgov]

Do you honestly think the ability to light up is worth more than every other possible issue combined?

Again, I ask, what are these other freedoms I'm missing out on that are worth sacrificing a toke?

. . . Do you seriously want me to list them out for you?

--Freedom to smoke where you want to
--Freedom to choose what kind of joint you want to smoke
--Freedom to choose how much pot you want to smoke
--Freedom to choose what you do after smoking a joint (that doesn't directly hurt others)
--Freedom to choose how to ingest your pot

and at least a dozen or so more that just have to deal with smoking pot.  I guarantee you that a "Big" government will put limits on all of these things and more, to "protect" you from doing anything irresponsible or dangerous to yourself.

[SvenssonRS]

How about "small government with marijuana legal?" Because that's pretty much the only way you're going to see legal marijuana, Red. It's against this administration's plans for it to be legalized; hence why they've said they'll enforce their godawful drug laws whether California likes it or not.

And also, Red? There are more important things in the world than pot right now. Like the economy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How about "small government with marijuana legal?" Because that's pretty much the only way you're going to see legal marijuana, Red. It's against this administration's plans for it to be legalized; hence why they've said they'll enforce their godawful drug laws whether California likes it or not.

And also, Red? There are more important things in the world than pot right now. Like the economy.

Does the Netherlands have small government?

Not to mention that Minneapolis has a huge bloated city government yet basically simply ignores marijuana laws and only enforce them if some other crime is involved.

[dead0man]

The latter is an oxymoron.

Then I guess most of the Tea Party are not for small government.

Nope.  Only a very small minority of people are for small government.

But how many of them are small people?  Going by my numbers (totally made up for fun) there are 4 midgets in this country that are for small govt.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I like marijuana. This should tell you where my vote went. The big government-small government dichotomy is stupid and tells me nothing. I'll assume it's a big "welfare state" government, which I'd prefer to any small government. I inherently prefer big governments because there's a good chance I'm going to be working in public service or a special interest group or something. Bureaucracy + weed = dank.

Monetary freedoms mean very little to me in my personal life even though I'm fascinated by Economics and public policy related towards taxation and the social safety net.

[King]

Do you honestly think the ability to light up is worth more than every other possible issue combined?

Again, I ask, what are these other freedoms I'm missing out on that are worth sacrificing a toke?

. . . Do you seriously want me to list them out for you?

--Freedom to smoke where you want to
--Freedom to choose what kind of joint you want to smoke
--Freedom to choose how much pot you want to smoke
--Freedom to choose what you do after smoking a joint (that doesn't directly hurt others)
--Freedom to choose how to ingest your pot

and at least a dozen or so more that just have to deal with smoking pot.  I guarantee you that a "Big" government will put limits on all of these things and more, to "protect" you from doing anything irresponsible or dangerous to yourself.

Well in the small government with illegal weed, those questions would still be put up as the drug itself would be illegal.

What non-marijuana-related freedoms would I gain by having a small government, but still have drug prohibition?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Doesn't this belong in the Individual Politics section?

[Roemerista]

Smaller government, illegal marijuana? Thats a double positive to me.

But over all, it depends on how "small" we are talking, vs how "big" we are talking. If by small you mean absolutely no social programs, well then I would prefer legalized pot and "big" government, unless of course that by "big" you mean the extreme suggested by Hayek.

[Хahar 🤔]

Government size is not a thing.

[Platypus]

Smart government with a community-supported law in regards to pot?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Smart government with a community-supported law in regards to pot?

The latter isn't exactly feasible. When it comes to something like marijuana, you can't have just a patchwork of places with it legal and places with it not. It'd become as big a joke as dry counties are. If Minneapolis had legal marijuana for example (which it would support) and the prudish suburbs were opposed, what could they do about the fact that anyone could just drive here and buy pot? (Granted that's basically what happens with suburban kids now...but they can't just stop in a gas station to pick some up as would be the case under this scenario.)