Time to Legalize Weed?

US News • Views: 4,944

So let’s try a non-controversial subject for a change.

Like legalizing marijuana.

Carlos Santana is in favor of it. Doesn’t that count? (I’m kidding, of course.)

The US is currently spending more than $10 billion every year trying to stop people from consuming marijuana, and getting absolutely nowhere. Is it time to make it legal—prohibit kids from buying it, but tax it for adults? Some people estimate that California alone could rake in more than $15 billion annually if that happened.

UPDATE at 4/5/09 8:40:48 pm:

Here’s Penn Jillette’s take:

Youtube Video

Jump to bottom

1237 comments
1 Mich-again  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:20:08pm

Ear!

2 Charles Johnson  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:20:17pm

And no, I am not a pot smoker. Sorry, stalkers.

3 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:20:31pm

I say do it and quite wasting resources better spent on other crimes and harder drugs.

4 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:21:55pm

re: #1 Mich-again

Ear!

Give it up Hoover. //

5 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:21:56pm

Legalise weed ! For most drug users .. its always been the introduction point for the more heavy stuff. By legalising it you take the wow and awe factor out of it. Sure you'll have people using it .. but LESS of them.

I also think the laws for drug seizure in relation to pot are just stupid.

6 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:22:00pm

People say pot is a gateway drug. I say it's beer.

7 Gella  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:22:21pm

if POTUS can do it, why shouldn't we ?
read article in Parade magazine, our prisons overcrowded which includes ppl who had small amount of pot on then or small time dillers

8 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:22:41pm

re: #2 Charles

And no, I am not a pot smoker. Sorry, stalkers.

Doesn't matter. As of sixty seconds ago, in the eyes of the LGF stalker blogs, you are now officially a dope-smoking secret leftist Jew-controlled communist, who runs this blog in order to siphon support away from the Republican party.

Congratulations!

9 barere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:22:45pm

Yes, we should legalize marijuana. The economics cost / benefit argument is all but over at this stage.

Miton Friedman on Drug Legalization

And William F. Buckley would probably also agree that it is fallacious to say that the legality of something should necessarily say something about the morality of it.

10 PSGInfinity  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:22:55pm

Finally!
We can get all pedantic about a relevant issue!
Remember: "Ready! Fire! Aim!"

11 strikefo  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:23:16pm

the argument for taxing things to make a profit isn't much of an argument.

look at ny state, and their unbelievably high taxes on cigarettes. this has, in turn, made people embrace smuggling of cigarettes to get around it. the same will go for marijuana.

this country was founded on it. hello boston tea party. if we are taxed on goods we want... we aren't going to pay them. people WILL always find a way around it.

12 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:23:34pm

Carlos think's he's a god. Made everyone on Supernatural mention his name in their song.

I'm gonna bow out of this conversation with the observation that only the extremely naive think that this will ever happen nationwide, and that trying to get it legalized is akin to trying to jump to the moon.

There is a multibillion-dollar industry completely dependant upon keeping it criminal. Tax it? What, $12,000 a joint? That wouln't cover the county-level revenue loss.

Later all.

13 mbruce  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:23:35pm

No not beer, lack of sex, that's the problem.

14 PSGInfinity  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:23:48pm

re: #8 Last Mohican

Doesn't matter. As of sixty seconds ago, in the eyes of the LGF stalker blogs, you are now officially a dope-smoking secret leftist Jew-controlled communist, who runs this blog in order to siphon support away from the Republican party.

Congratulations!

Aaaaannnnddd this is a problem?

15 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:23:57pm

re: #5 Buster Bunny

Legalise weed ! For most drug users .. its always been the introduction point for the more heavy stuff. By legalising it you take the wow and awe factor out of it. Sure you'll have people using it .. but LESS of them.

I also think the laws for drug seizure in relation to pot are just stupid.

I think part of the problem is that we lie to kids about the effects. Then they try it, think they've been lied to and try something harder, and that's much worse. I favor being honest about it. Is it a drug? Yes. It's going to make you silly for a it, then hungry, then sleepy. Just be honest.

16 jaunte  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:24:00pm

It won't happen; there's too big an industry built around pot being illegal.

17 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:24:09pm

re: #5 Buster Bunny

Legalise weed ! For most drug users .. its always been the introduction point for the more heavy stuff. By legalising it you take the wow and awe factor out of it. Sure you'll have people using it .. but LESS of them.

I also think the laws for drug seizure in relation to pot are just stupid.

I don't think it's a gateway drug. What makes it a gateway drug is the illegal status that takes exposes pot users to a drug dealer sub-culture. Typically someone that sells pot will sell harder drugs. If pot was legal they wouldn't be exposed to that environment.

18 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:24:48pm
"Legalize marijuana and take all that money and invest it in teachers and in education," Santana said in an interview this week.

Hell, no! If they legalize marijuana, they'll need to take all that money and invest it in increasing production of pop tarts.

19 NeoKong  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:25:07pm

That's a big can of worms to open.Legalizing a very powerful drug for sale has many implications and complications.How many people die or get in trouble because of booze...?
Do we really need another category of that?

20 Sosigado  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:25:08pm

$15 billion? Man, there sure are a lot of stoners in CA, eh?

21 barere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:25:09pm

re: #17 Gus 802

I don't think it's a gateway drug. What makes it a gateway drug is the illegal status that takes exposes pot users to a drug dealer sub-culture. Typically someone that sells pot will sell harder drugs. If pot was legal they wouldn't be exposed to that environment.

Spot on! Marijuana is bulkier and much easier for the feds to intervene on. As a result, the price of Marijuana is pushed on, driving users to stronger drugs (see Friedman).

22 Gella  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:25:17pm

re: #18 Last Mohican

Hell, no! If they legalize marijuana, they'll need to take all that money and invest it in increasing production of pop tarts.

that where problem of overweight comes into a picture

23 afootball  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:25:22pm

The WoD has really been an expensive waste, both within the US and abroad and the WoT should really take priority.

Might this be the only good thing that comes out of an Obama presidency ?

24 The Shadow Do  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:25:33pm

Anyone who has kids knows the answer to this question.

25 Gella  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:25:33pm

re: #20 Sosigado

$15 billion? Man, there sure are a lot of stoners in CA, eh?

Sean Penn?

26 Timbre  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:25:33pm

No. It should be against the law, but with no penalties attached.

27 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:25:52pm

There was an article in Penthouse (yes .. I read it for the articles) about some poor chump who was a writer in CA (isnt everyone who isnt an actor or IT nerd?) who had his place confiscated because he had a couple of ounces for personal use and he just happened to have some 'fertiliser' in his back shed.

For that he was labelled a 'producer' and his house and assets confiscated.

I mean its a once off, (or is it?) but there must be better measures in place to deal with the situation properly. He basically lost everything because of that.

My point is .. that just shouldn't happen. Not in any state or country where they believe in any degree of 'freedom'

28 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:26:01pm

re: #26 Timbre

No. It should be against the law, but with no penalties attached.

Sort of like North Korea launching a ballistic missile.

29 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:26:14pm

Not a pot smoker. votes Republican, but headed to politically neutral I think.

I'm in favor of it's legalization and also making harsher penalties on harder drugs. Pot smoking is so common, the users don't need to be criminals.

30 barere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:26:20pm

Also, beyond the economic rationale for legalization, there is the moral argument:

Does the government really have a right to decide what free citizens put in their own body?

31 itellu3times  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:26:37pm

When inflation hits 30% a month later this year, I'm going to need a lot of magic brownies.

32 PSGInfinity  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:26:57pm

re: #12 Taqiyyotomist

[SNIP] I'm gonna bow out of this conversation with the observation that only the extremely naive think that this will ever happen nationwide, and that trying to get it legalized is akin to trying to jump to the moon. There is a multi-billion-dollar industry completely dependent upon keeping it criminal. Tax it? What, $12,000 a joint? That wouldn't cover the county-level revenue loss.

'Nite, Taq!

And here's on of the hidden fulcrums of the argument, the other being the fear of overwhelming deviancy/uptake in pot and other drugs...

33 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:26:59pm

re: #6 Sharmuta

People say pot is a gateway drug. I say it's beer.

You say pot is beer?
Never mind, just pass me a pot of beer.

34 Gella  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:27:34pm

re: #33 Spare O'Lake

You say pot is beer?
Never mind, just pass me a pot of beer.

hmm pot flavored beer :)

35 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:27:54pm

I have spoken with law enforcement officers on this subject, and I'll never forget what one told me:

"Shar- I've never taken a call to go to some pot head's house because he's beating his wife. If anything we should ban booze."

This takes away too many resources, imo. Money, time, jail space, etc. that could all be going towards much more problematic issues in our society. I get really pissed thinking about a pot head spending 20 years in jail, and we let child molesters out in a handful of years. Disgusting.

36 fpxr  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:28:06pm

Well I don't like it, I don't like it at all!
Put down one "no," one "against."
No sir, I dont like it one bit!

37 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:28:09pm

The greatest danger of pot smoking is susceptibility to hippie-ness. While, I like all rational people, find an increase of hippies troubling, I don't think it's a problem of the severity requiring federal intervention.

Individual liberty, whether it be in the form of gun ownership or Hacky Sack use, should be respected.

38 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:28:09pm

re: #26 Timbre

No. It should be against the law, but with no penalties attached.

I disagree. It should be legal, but with harsh penalties attached.

39 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:28:29pm

re: #9 barere

Yes, we should legalize marijuana. The economics cost / benefit argument is all but over at this stage.

Miton Friedman on Drug Legalization

And William F. Buckley would probably also agree that it is fallacious to say that the legality of something should necessarily say something about the morality of it.

Listening to Friedman. He makes some excellent points.

40 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:28:38pm

That's one toke over the line, IMO.
You think we have a productivity problem in this country now? An obesity problem now?
Why add an additional bunch of mellowed out workers with the munchies to the mix?

41 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:28:59pm

re: #38 Spare O'Lake

I disagree. It should be legal, but with harsh penalties attached.

Sort of like Jose Cuervo.

42 Macker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:29:00pm

re: #18 Last Mohican

Don't you mean Pot-Tarts?

43 Samurai  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:29:18pm

Hey, why stop there,. let's legalize all kinds of illegal things and just charge a tax for it! Who cares what kind of message this sends! Look at Mexico, all you need to do is pay the "tax" to a police officer and you can do almost anything you want! Why shouldn't America throw in the towel on crime fighting and do the same? Why, we could even disband all the police forces and save a ton of money that way, just replace them with IRS agents to collect the required tax for whatever formerly illegal activity you are interested in.

44 fpxr  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:29:20pm

re: #35 Sharmuta

They can both go to jail... it doesn't have ot be an either/or.

45 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:29:25pm

re: #30 barere

Also, beyond the economic rationale for legalization, there is the moral argument:

Does the government really have a right to decide what free citizens put in their own body?

People pop pills and overdose, people go around playing with guns. People drunk themselves to death and no-one complains. And yet .. think of what would have happened to Pres Clinton if he'd been shunted to jail for smoking weed .. a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

Thousands of interns and Hooters waitresses would have been saved.

46 Tarheel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:29:30pm

S-CHIP III. $100 per pack of 10. Yea, that's do it.
But be sure to say it in AUSTRIAN.

47 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:29:43pm

re: #40 tradewind

That's one toke over the line, IMO.
You think we have a productivity problem in this country now? An obesity problem now?
Why add an additional bunch of mellowed out workers with the munchies to the mix?

So- limit people's freedom to choose for themselves? How did that go over with Prohibition, eh?

48 nbenhaim  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:29:51pm

I suppose I don't mind the idea, but man, when I hear small figures like 15 billion go up against 1 trillion in spending, I don't know how much it would help. Don't forget all the decreased productivity the law would bring haha

49 hornsofthedevil  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:30:29pm

I know its semantics, but we need to decriminalize weed, not legalize it.
The goal being to pull back laws that put people with marijuana arrests in jail.

For crying out loud, if a person has a nonviolent infraction involving marijuana, don't waste the state's money on a jail sentence for them. How much money do you think we would save by not incarcerating those infractions - you'd be surprised.

Our prisons here in California are dangerously overcrowded and its ludicrous that people are behind bars(and we're paying for them) to serve out a term for something so inconsequential as a marijuana conviction. Fine them for egregious possession or trafficking convictions .

Legalize? No... thats going way too far. I smoke grass occasionally and thats the last thing that I think should happen.

50 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:30:39pm

re: #44 fpxr

They can both go to jail... it doesn't have ot be an either/or.

Why should a pot smoker minding their own business and breaking no laws other than smoking some pot belong in jail?

51 Charles Johnson  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:30:56pm

re: #35 Sharmuta

I have spoken with law enforcement officers on this subject, and I'll never forget what one told me:

"Shar- I've never taken a call to go to some pot head's house because he's beating his wife. If anything we should ban booze."

One thing I know for a fact -- alcohol takes a much higher toll on people's lives than marijuana ever has.

52 PSGInfinity  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:31:00pm

re: #15 Sharmuta

I think part of the problem is that we lie to kids about the effects. Then they try it, think they've been lied to and try something harder, and that's much worse. I favor being honest about it. Is it a drug? Yes. It's going to make you silly for a it, then hungry, then sleepy. Just be honest.

There are some studies out that indicate that it might damage the brain's ability to control paranoia. Which, if true, would certainly help put the Left's behavior in perspective...

53 itellu3times  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:31:14pm

Have to add the cost of trial and incarceration involved, many more billions.

54 barere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:31:26pm

re: #45 Buster Bunny

People pop pills and overdose, people go around playing with guns. People drunk themselves to death and no-one complains. And yet .. think of what would have happened to Pres Clinton if he'd been shunted to jail for smoking weed .. a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

Thousands of interns and Hooters waitresses would have been saved.

I personally don't smoke marijuana.

But it is perfectly legal to huff air duster or contract syphillus.

Doesn't make it right.

It ought to be up to the discretion of the individual, not the government.

55 ladycatnip  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:31:32pm

#35 Sharmuta

I have spoken with law enforcement officers on this subject, and I'll never forget what one told me:

"Shar- I've never taken a call to go to some pot head's house because he's beating his wife. If anything we should ban booze."

Same thing Prager has talked about regarding smoking cigarettes - it's alcohol that wipes out whole families on the road, alcohol that's behind physical abuse of spouses and children...not smoking.

Why no fuss about alcohol?

56 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:31:35pm

re: #51 Charles

One thing I know for a fact -- alcohol takes a much higher toll on people's lives than marijuana ever has.

Well, for one thing, alcohol is physically addictive, and marijuana is not.

57 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:31:37pm

well, it had to be played:

one toke with lawrence!

58 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:32:16pm

re: #51 Charles

One thing I know for a fact -- alcohol takes a much higher toll on people's lives than marijuana ever has.

Absolutely. I have lost two very important people in my life because of alcohol.

59 Gella  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:32:33pm

re: #55 ladycatnip

#35 Sharmuta

Same thing Prager has talked about regarding smoking cigarettes - it's alcohol that wipes out whole families on the road, alcohol that's behind physical abuse of spouses and children...not smoking.

Why no fuss about alcohol?

don't forget there is also 3rd hand smoking and taxes a hiking up for cigarettes

60 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:32:45pm

Hey Night Lizards! It's snowing sideways in the Very Far Western Suburbs of Chicagoland right now.

Economically, it might seem like a smart thing to legalize pot. I don't know. As a lover of the weed, I am very glad I quit nearly 13 years ago. Those that didn't, at my age, are F@CKIN' STUPID now. Long-term use does something to the brain that alcohol doesn't do.

I find that it is also a de-motivator. So many "losers" are pot-smokers. It may be a wonderful soma tablet substitute, but I don't think it would be good for individuals or society as-a-whole for it to be legalized for recreational use.

I do, however, have no problem with bona fide medical use or research in to the benefits of the plant. As I understand it there are a lot of roadblocks to researching it. I think it might have benefits as an anti-anxiety med, if the negative attributes could be overcome.

Perhaps there is a way to decriminalize it, without giving the message that it is "ok" to get high.

How you-all doing tonite.

61 pat  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:32:49pm

Leave it up to the States. It is already partially legal in Hawaii, BTW. No one is worked up.

62 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:32:56pm

re: #51 Charles

One thing I know for a fact -- alcohol takes a much higher toll on people's lives than marijuana ever has.

Most definitely. Alcohol is legal, but pot's not ? And besides, we can just pass out weed on election day--nobody will vote democrat again.

63 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:33:03pm

re: #55 ladycatnip

#35 Sharmuta

Same thing Prager has talked about regarding smoking cigarettes - it's alcohol that wipes out whole families on the road, alcohol that's behind physical abuse of spouses and children...not smoking.

Why no fuss about alcohol?

Well, marijuana wipes out whole families on the road too, if a driver has been smoking it.

Physical abuse of spouses and children, probably not so much.

64 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:33:09pm

I recall about 8 years ago, there was a lot of media attention given to the football thugs (soccer), there were fights and riots as the games moved from capital to capital in Europe, until the big game in Amsterdam... very quiet, the larger louts were apparently mellowed out by the reefer.

65 kulhwch  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:33:49pm

Penn Gillette thinks it would be a good idea, and I think he's pretty bright ... *

George Carlin used to say that we would have had it legalized by now if anyone could remember where they left the petitions.

}:) &nbps;   [ * ... not bad for a Libertarian ... ]

66 PSGInfinity  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:33:56pm

re: #55 ladycatnip

#35 Sharmuta

Same thing Prager has talked about regarding smoking cigarettes - it's alcohol that wipes out whole families on the road, alcohol that's behind physical abuse of spouses and children...not smoking.

Why no fuss about alcohol?

Mostly because we're farther along the learning curve. That whole Prohibition thing worked out sooo well, didn't it?

67 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:34:00pm

re: #47 Sharmuta

People will always find a substance to use that's illegal.... for kids, that's part of the allure.
Comparing this issue to Prohibition is apples and oranges. The era of Elliot Ness busting bathtub gin operations doesn't really equate with what we have going on now.

68 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:34:04pm

re: #62 BryanS

And besides, we can just pass out weed on election day--nobody will vote democrat again.

Oh my God, you just had the best idea I've seen on this site in at least a month.

69 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:34:05pm

re: #55 ladycatnip

Why no fuss about alcohol?

There was. They banned it and welcomed the era of organized crime in many cities. Now we have the same thing. The parallels to the Prohibition era are almost the same.

70 pat  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:34:25pm

I think our governor should have told the Feds to shove it up their ass when they told Hawaii and 5 other states that they had no right to legalize home grown. The States still have a few ways of getting back at the Feds.

71 barere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:34:41pm

re: #65 kulhwch

Penn Gillette thinks it would be a good idea, and I think he's pretty bright ... *

George Carlin used to say that we would have had it legalized by now if anyone could remember where they left the petitions.

}:) &nbps;   [ * ... not bad for a Libertarian ... ]

Course. Pen and Teller are sensible libertarians!

72 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:34:44pm

re: #62 BryanS

Most definitely. Alcohol is legal, but pot's not ? And besides, we can just pass out weed on election day--nobody will vote democrat again.

With the obvious exception of those incarcerated for marijuana.

73 Mich-again  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:34:46pm

Alcohol can be just for enjoyment but it can also ruin lives and does every day. Pot isn't as likely to cause destruction but it lowers the bar for wanting to actually accomplish things in life. One kills, one numbs. Both best avoided.

74 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:34:47pm

re: #67 tradewind

People will always find a substance to use that's illegal.... for kids, that's part of the allure.
Comparing this issue to Prohibition is apples and oranges. The era of Elliot Ness busting bathtub gin operations doesn't really equate with what we have going on now.

I completely disagree.

75 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:34:50pm

Friedman on Legalizing Drugs

Youtube Video

He goes further in his discussion to legalizing all drugs. Makes some interesting point nonetheless.

76 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:34:52pm

re: #54 barere

I personally don't smoke marijuana.

But it is perfectly legal to huff air duster or contract syphillus.

Doesn't make it right.

It ought to be up to the discretion of the individual, not the government.

And you've answered the REAL problem.

People have developed a victim mentality. In that scenario, there is no delegated responsibilit or ONUS on the person concerned. You slip up in a supermarket? Heck .. it wasnt your fault for not reading the CLEAR signs layed out saying WET patch. It was the owner of the business's fault for having a wet patch.

If you place the onus of responsibility back on the consumer for his deeds, then if you smoke pot .. there are choices that you have made. AND SOME WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES. So .. penalise it from the medicare side of things. Heck .. with health insurance they do that for smokers .. why not dope smokers?

77 pegcity  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:35:25pm

im in canada, its borderline legal here, no one cares, thats a problem and now it turns out weed is being used to purchase cocaine and automatic weapons and is implicated in more than 16 shootings in surrey vancouver since Janurary.

78 abolitionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:35:25pm

Any chance we could wait until Soros expires?

79 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:35:32pm

re: #30 barere

Also, beyond the economic rationale for legalization, there is the moral argument:

Does the government really have a right to decide what free citizens put in their own body?

Yes, there are drugs that abusing them can f*ck an 18 year old up pretty bad. For Life. Pot is not one of them. Ecstasy is the other easy drug now.

18 years old need a reasonable chance to make it to 30 without screwing themselves up.

80 Gella  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:35:41pm

few years ago i read research somewhere Vicodin is worth then pot, ohh and u can also buy Vicodin in a street

81 Timbre  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:35:43pm

Fine, legalize it. But if I'm in the ditch with the shovel and the drunk/stoned/high backhoe operator drops the hoe on my head, he/she is going to wish they were in prison that day, away from me. Unless I'm dead in the ditch in which case the drunk/stoned/high idiot is going to jail anyway for manslaughter.

82 formercorpsman  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:35:44pm

Realwest was actually someone who made me think a little harder about the subject itself. I was against legalization, but now I can see the opposing arguments better.

I guess if I have one problem, which really does not drive so much at the whole legalization issue itself, is the fact that the governments have gorged themselves at the taxpayers table, expecting meals not even on the stove yet.

Finding another avenue to generate tax revenue is not always a bad thing, but the flip side just puts a potential band-aid on a problem that will certainly outpace the money generated by this argument.

Aside from this argument, I am totally dismayed that somehow we have become copasetic with the idea that a government naturally runs in the red, and to feed it, we need to place a bullseye on something else in order to extract money out of it.

I have other questions as well, perhaps another time.

83 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:36:39pm

re: #63 Last Mohican

Well, marijuana wipes out whole families on the road too, if a driver has been smoking it.

Physical abuse of spouses and children, probably not so much.

If you are driving under the influence of any drug, you should be held responsible for any accidents you cause as though it was a premeditated act. Taking the drug and driving is definitely premeditated, so the consequences should be too. Same for beatings, etc.

84 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:36:54pm

re: #41 Last Mohican

Sort of like Jose Cuervo.

Searchin' for my lost shaker of salt?

85 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:36:56pm

We rail against the nanny state telling us what we can and can't do.

How is this different?

Who cares if at the end of the day, a pot head goes home and lights one up instead pouring a drink? Maybe I know too many older hippy types. They maintain their jobs, and go home and smoke, get up the next day and do it again. Why are they criminals?

86 nyc redneck  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:37:15pm

people are going to always want something to alter their minds.

87 jaunte  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:37:18pm

re: #81 Timbre

They have had some problems in the copper mines outside of Tucson with stoned drivers in those huge mining trucks.

88 sneezey  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:37:19pm

Do it. Less impairing than alcohol.

89 m1150  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:37:19pm

Anyone who says, "Make it legal for adults but keep it banned for kids" is a hypocrite.

It should be legal for everyone or illegal for everyone. None of this "Do as I say, not as I do" nonsense.

I believe the same thing for alcohol, BTW.

90 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:37:27pm

re: #55 ladycatnip

#35 Sharmuta


Same thing Prager has talked about regarding smoking cigarettes - it's alcohol that wipes out whole families on the road, alcohol that's behind physical abuse of spouses and children...not smoking.

Why no fuss about alcohol?

We tried that. Didn't work.

91 barere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:37:27pm

re: #79 hazzyday

Yes, there are drugs that abusing them can f*ck an 18 year old up pretty bad. For Life. Pot is not one of them. Ecstasy is the other easy drug now.

18 years old need a reasonable chance to make it to 30 without screwing themselves up.

Freedom is not tenable for the irrational or the psychopathic i.e., children and madmen. For children, parents should be in control.

92 Sheepdogess  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:37:27pm

It's a gateway drug. Ask any crack or heroin user.

re: #35 Sharmuta

"Shar- I've never taken a call to go to some pot head's house because he's beating his wife. If anything we should ban booze."


I bet he has never taken a call to a some tabacco users house because he was beating his wife either.

93 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:37:30pm

A lot of pretty average people smoke pot.

94 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:37:33pm

re: #81 Timbre

Fine, legalize it. But if I'm in the ditch with the shovel and the drunk/stoned/high backhoe operator drops the hoe on my head, he/she is going to wish they were in prison that day, away from me. Unless I'm dead in the ditch in which case the drunk/stoned/high idiot is going to jail anyway for manslaughter.

Right. Which means that the same rules have always applied for both alcohol or marijuana. Legal status would not change those rules.

95 Salamantis  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:37:45pm

re: #67 tradewind

People will always find a substance to use that's illegal.... for kids, that's part of the allure.
Comparing this issue to Prohibition is apples and oranges. The era of Elliot Ness busting bathtub gin operations doesn't really equate with what we have going on now.

What's the difference between busting bathtub gin operations and busting windowbox pot growing operations, besides the particular substance concerned?

96 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:38:37pm

re: #85 Sharmuta

We rail against the nanny state telling us what we can and can't do.

How is this different?

Who cares if at the end of the day, a pot head goes home and lights one up instead pouring a drink? Maybe I know too many older hippy types. They maintain their jobs, and go home and smoke, get up the next day and do it again. Why are they criminals?

They shouldn't be. I'm not a pot smoker, but I just don't see what business it is of the government's to meddle in someone else's informed decision to take a drug.

97 Mich-again  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:38:38pm

re: #89 m1150

I believe the same thing for alcohol, BTW.

So you think 14 year olds should be able to go buy a 40-ouncer of Mickey's at the Party Store?

98 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:39:06pm

re: #2 Charles

And no, I am not a pot smoker. Sorry, stalkers.

I was a pot smoker. It didn't hurt me as far as I know. I quit smoking it socially in 2005 because my pot smoking buddies moved away. When I had surgery I took it up again, because I do not like valiums and vicodins, but when I healed I stopped again.

There's not much point in doing it, but then there's not much point in drinking either. Lungs or liver, it's a toughie. It should be legal if drinking gin is legal. The problem is it's really hard for others to take you seriously if your placard says "I HAVE A RIGHT TO GET F*CKED UP".

I think Rush Limbaugh would be in better shape today if he'd smoked a bowl instead of popping all those painkillers.

99 kahall  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:39:08pm

I'm only for it if one can grow it themselves as well as purchase it.

100 Mich-again  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:39:10pm

re: #93 hazzyday

A lot of pretty average people smoke pot.

Thats why they are pretty average.

101 Charles Johnson  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:39:23pm

re: #63 Last Mohican

Well, marijuana wipes out whole families on the road too, if a driver has been smoking it.

Absolutely not the same at all.

102 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:39:45pm

re: #96 BryanS

They shouldn't be. I'm not a pot smoker, but I just don't see what business it is of the government's to meddle in someone else's informed decision to take a drug.

Do what they do for smoking and drinking. Tax the living crap out of it. But legally. So that even the government can make money from the whole experience.

103 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:40:05pm

Some people do seem to have a fixation on marijauna. I suppose they take it to literally be the demon weed. When they were trying to get it banned they were making all kinds of outlandish claims. That it would make people go on homicidal rampages (nothing could be further from the truth) and they even stoked racial hatred for their cause, warning that blacks and Mexicans smoking weed would run around raping white women. So smoking pot went from a perceived nuisance to an offense deserving a life sentence in a matter of a decade. It was a kind of holy inquisition in itself, though curiously it's mostly only pot-smokers who see it that way even to this day.

104 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:40:34pm

re: #92 Sheepdogess

It's a gateway drug. Ask any crack or heroin user.


I bet he has never taken a call to a some tabacco users house because he was beating his wife either.

Probably not. But you know what worries me more than anything about legalizing pot? The SMELL. God, I hate that horrible smell.

I'm a perfume buff, and Fresh has a fragrance out called Cannabis Rose. I nearly wept.

105 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:40:38pm

I do indulge in cannabis every now and then, I'm not that fond of alcohol anymore. My answer is obviously yes, marijuana should be legalized. It is already decriminalized in many states, including in my state, and marijuana is less dangerous than many other legal drugs currently available including alcohol.

Prohibition of alcohol was wrong, and so is the prohibition of cannabis, which is largely based upon government lies and propaganda. In the end, millions of people will smoke cannabis, regardless if it's legal or not. Nobody can stop people from smoking that plant. It is currently illegal because the law is unjust and I do believe that eventually the ridiculous prohibition will end.

106 NonNativeTexan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:40:44pm

I think they should make tobacco cigarettes legal again.

107 m1150  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:40:45pm
So you think 14 year olds should be able to go buy a 40-ouncer of Mickey's at the Party Store?

Yes, I do. Or at the very least, I don't think the young person should face an antagonistic court proceeding and punishment for doing so.

Ever lived in Europe or Latin America?

PS, what's Mickey's?

108 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:40:59pm

I, for one, am in favor of another addicted group being taxed up the wazoo.

109 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:41:03pm

re: #92 Sheepdogess

It's a gateway drug. Ask any crack or heroin user.


I bet he has never taken a call to a some tabacco users house because he was beating his wife either.

It's not a gateway drug, it's a gate way environment. doesn't make a difference whether it's beer or pot.

110 Ghost707  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:41:15pm

Obama already said no to this one.

Besides, the war on drugs provides the government with a cover program to divert federal funds.

Just like oil, it's all about the money.

111 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:41:27pm
Youtube Video
112 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:41:29pm

re: #101 Charles

Driving while intoxicated .. drugs or alcohol is a no no. And you should always hit them hard for that. Big penalties for doing something that can take lives or cause havoc. If they cant be responsible enough to say .. nah i'm high .. i'll wait till after the munchies .. they they deserve what they get.

113 Charles Johnson  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:41:39pm

re: #89 m1150

Anyone who says, "Make it legal for adults but keep it banned for kids" is a hypocrite.

It should be legal for everyone or illegal for everyone. None of this "Do as I say, not as I do" nonsense.

I believe the same thing for alcohol, BTW.

Are you nuts?

114 jdog29  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:41:39pm

If weed is legalized the bottom falls out of the price as people start growing it everywhere, so there is no tax advantages. Instead of a field of corn or soybeans, pot production.

Yeah man, I got a row of tomatoes, a row of cucumbers and 6 rows of weed.

Yeah man, can you remember back when weed was like illegal man?

Yeah, back then they just voted on who would play for the college football div. I national championship.

Yeah, back then we had never removed 10 zeros from our currency because of runaway inflation.

115 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:41:44pm

re: #98 Zimriel

I was a pot smoker. It didn't hurt me as far as I know. I quit smoking it socially in 2005 because my pot smoking buddies moved away. When I had surgery I took it up again, because I do not like valiums and vicodins, but when I healed I stopped again.

There's not much point in doing it, but then there's not much point in drinking either. Lungs or liver, it's a toughie. It should be legal if drinking gin is legal. The problem is it's really hard for others to take you seriously if your placard says "I HAVE A RIGHT TO GET F*CKED UP".

I think Rush Limbaugh would be in better shape today if he'd smoked a bowl instead of popping all those painkillers.

If I had to do it all over again I wouldn't have ever started drinking. I was an occasional pot user for a time and that was about it. The health effects from drinking is far worse than what I experienced smoking pot. Of course I was a temperate smoker.

116 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:41:50pm

re: #58 Sharmuta

Absolutely. I have lost two very important people in my life because of alcohol.

Yes, DUI is an especially destructive activity.
OTOH, let's keep in mind that there are way more alcohol users than pot users, so the statistics don't really compare properly.

117 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:41:51pm

re: #102 Buster Bunny

Do what they do for smoking and drinking. Tax the living crap out of it. But legally. So that even the government can make money from the whole experience.

Don't have a problem with the government taxing something that has a societal cost. Most mood altering drugs have other costs that people on this thread point out--I'm fine with taxes on any recreational drug .

118 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:41:58pm

re: #110 Ghost707

Obama already said no to this one.

Did he bow when he said no?

119 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:42:09pm

re: #103 Salem

Some people do seem to have a fixation on marijauna. I suppose they take it to literally be the demon weed. When they were trying to get it banned they were making all kinds of outlandish claims. That it would make people go on homicidal rampages (nothing could be further from the truth) and they even stoked racial hatred for their cause, warning that blacks and Mexicans smoking weed would run around raping white women. So smoking pot went from a perceived nuisance to an offense deserving a life sentence in a matter of a decade. It was a kind of holy inquisition in itself, though curiously it's mostly only pot-smokers who see it that way even to this day.

Anyone seen Reefer Madness: The Musical?

120 Steve Rogers  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:42:14pm

If a person claims they believe in freedom and liberty, they must believe adults have the right to own a naturally occurring plant and use it as they see fit as long as they don't put others at risk while doing so.

Anyone who tries to justify the state pulling out its guns (literally) and putting those guns to the heads of non-violent people over a plant do not believe in freedom and liberty. Period.

121 jaunte  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:42:15pm

re: #108 Wishing

I, for one, am in favor of another addicted group being taxed up the wazoo.

Except the anticipated revenue from the addicted usually falls short and has to be made up by the rest of the taxpayers.

122 Mich-again  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:42:16pm

re: #63 Last Mohican

Well, marijuana wipes out whole families on the road too, if a driver has been smoking it.

Not so sure about that comment. Pot doesn't make drivers sleepy or drive into ditches. It does impair the ability to hold a constant speed or remember directions.

123 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:42:18pm

I haven't smoked pot in a few years since I stopped skiing with my buddies. They all grew up, got married and had kids. I'm thinking about taking it up again. It might help the Obama era pass more pleasantly.

124 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:42:19pm

As long as employers still drug test, which I think insurance companies and fear of liability lawsuits will continue to require, I'm not concerned about the "working population" operating fork-lifts etc. I am worried that the high school and college aged population will be come so addicted that they never make it to the workforce.

I don't know about not becoming physically addicted. Actually, I do know. You can become physically addicted--I know. Anyone that tells you differently is b@llshitting you.

I think that we need to stop using drugs as legal bogeymen. Pot possession (in small quanities) is not a jailable offense. Sh!t, have a plant or two isn't either. Importing kilos thru organized crime channels is.

125 Sheepdogess  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:42:19pm

We recently had a kid from our school stoned out of his mind, driving like a maniac " at a very high speed" kill a woman. She was a wife and mother of two. He's going to the big house. He was a good kid. It's too bad.

126 Tarheel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:42:22pm

re: #63 Last Mohican

Well, marijuana wipes out whole families on the road too, if a driver has been smoking it.

Perhaps is has something to do with the fact that almost all politicians drink booze, doncha think? Those two martini lunches with the lobbyists.

127 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:42:26pm

They won't let me embed this.

128 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:42:57pm

re: #100 Mich-again

Thats why they are pretty average.

Yep, but no need to make them felons. And make them afraid to report domestic violence.

129 m1150  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:43:34pm

113 charles:

No I'm quite sane and have spent a great deal of my life studying youth alcohol policy. I'm firmly convinced youth prohibition has led to all of the problems of general prohibition in the 20s and that the best way to avoid alcohol problems is to gradually introduce young people to alcohol in a non-glorified, non-forbidden fruit way from a young age, as is done in Southern European cultures with very low rates of alcoholism.

Are you a hypocrite?

130 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:43:43pm

re: #120 Steve Rogers

If a person claims they believe in freedom and liberty, they must believe adults have the right to own a naturally occurring plant and use it as they see fit as long as they don't put others at risk while doing so.

Anyone who tries to justify the state pulling out its guns (literally) and putting those guns to the heads of non-violent people over a plant do not believe in freedom and liberty. Period.

How far does this go for you? All drugs are initially derived from natural substances.

131 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:43:56pm

Peter Tosh - Legalize it live

Youtube Video
132 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:44:11pm

re: #121 jaunte

Except the anticipated revenue from the addicted usually falls short and has to be made up by the rest of the taxpayers.

So stick it to the pot users early on...give the rest of us a break.

133 Tarheel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:44:23pm

re: #126 Tarheel

Perhaps is has something to do with the fact that almost all politicians drink booze, doncha think? Those two martini lunches with the lobbyists.

Sorry about my editing. I was referring to the alcohol posts....

134 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:44:31pm

re: #120 Steve Rogers

If a person claims they believe in freedom and liberty, they must believe adults have the right to own a naturally occurring plant and use it as they see fit as long as they don't put others at risk while doing so.

Anyone who tries to justify the state pulling out its guns (literally) and putting those guns to the heads of non-violent people over a plant do not believe in freedom and liberty. Period.

Don't tell me what I must believe! Even though you happen to be right on this occasion.

135 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:44:34pm

re: #89 m1150

Anyone who says, "Make it legal for adults but keep it banned for kids" is a hypocrite.

It should be legal for everyone or illegal for everyone. None of this "Do as I say, not as I do" nonsense.

I believe the same thing for alcohol, BTW.

The assumption that at a certain age .. you can take the responsibility of an adult for anything you do is a foundation of our society. We set a date where we think that kind of thing is ok. And its a measure of how we conduct our society.

You can be irresponsible at 80 .. or responsible at 15 .. but .. we set a date at which by that time we HOPE you have met the challenge of responsibility for what you do.

136 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:44:35pm

re: #125 Sheepdogess

We recently had a kid from our school stoned out of his mind, driving like a maniac " at a very high speed" kill a woman. She was a wife and mother of two. He's going to the big house. He was a good kid. It's too bad.

That's terrible and I can see that happening. I was acquainted with a guy that smoked all day and he was rather crazy. I'm not sure if he was born that way but my conclusion was that he smoked far too much.

137 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:44:46pm

re: #103 Salem

Some people do seem to have a fixation on marijauna. I suppose they take it to literally be the demon weed. When they were trying to get it banned they were making all kinds of outlandish claims. That it would make people go on homicidal rampages (nothing could be further from the truth) and they even stoked racial hatred for their cause, warning that blacks and Mexicans smoking weed would run around raping white women. So smoking pot went from a perceived nuisance to an offense deserving a life sentence in a matter of a decade. It was a kind of holy inquisition in itself, though curiously it's mostly only pot-smokers who see it that way even to this day.

Reefer Madness? What a piece of "f@cked-up" propaganda.

138 Sosigado  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:44:56pm

I really don't feel strongly about this, one way or the other, but I will say this - anyone who believes that pot is a totally benign substance, in terms of potential short-term and long-term detrimental psychological and physical effects is delusional.

139 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:44:58pm

I haven't hung around with anybody who smokes for at least 25 years, but back then it felt like half the reason they did was because it was illegal. Made them feel all desperado and covert and in a "club" or whatever. Take that away and it would become just another burgeois pastime. Don't know if that's the case these days-

I don't have a problem with it being legalized.

140 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:45:28pm

re: #119 SanFranciscoZionist

Anyone seen Reefer Madness: The Musical?

Not me, yet, but I live in Focus on the Family town so I'd have to spring for the DVD anyway.

141 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:45:30pm

re: #113 Charles

Are you nuts?

Nah, he's m1150, again... just pressin' his gamey ones against our window and giving a little wiggle.

142 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:45:32pm

re: #116 Spare O'Lake

Yes, DUI is an especially destructive activity.
OTOH, let's keep in mind that there are way more alcohol users than pot users, so the statistics don't really compare properly.

It wasn't from drunk drivers. This is too personal for me to elaborate more. Needless to say- alcohol has destroyed many families in ways that marijuana can't compare.

143 formercorpsman  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:45:33pm

re: #89 m1150

I can tell you, unequivocally, after putting my time in a trauma center, allowing young adults to have access to this is giving them a choice they are no way capable of handling.

The vast majority of young driver accidents are almost totally due to bad choices. Not accidental stuff, bad choice, bad decision making.

There has to be limits. Any rationale person should be able to see this.

Hell, at 16, did you not know it all, while at the same time not know a damn thing?

144 Charles Johnson  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:45:43pm

re: #129 m1150

113 charles:

No I'm quite sane and have spent a great deal of my life studying youth alcohol policy. I'm firmly convinced youth prohibition has led to all of the problems of general prohibition in the 20s and that the best way to avoid alcohol problems is to gradually introduce young people to alcohol in a non-glorified, non-forbidden fruit way from a young age, as is done in Southern European cultures with very low rates of alcoholism.

Are you a hypocrite?

Maybe, but after reviewing your comment history you are history.

145 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:45:53pm

re: #141 Zimriel

Nah, he's m1150, again... just pressin' his gamey ones against our window and giving a little wiggle.

I eat gameys for lunch.

146 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:45:57pm

re: #129 m1150

You're an idiot. They introduce the child to small quantities of wine. One cannot do that with marijuana.
You're gone anyway, why am I wasting my time with you?

147 Gella  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:46:05pm

there is a prescription pot Marinol, prescribed for AIDS and cancer patients, but it doesn't give u high, btw it has been moved from CII to C3 category, make it easier to dispense

148 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:46:07pm

I now have a moral dilemma around pot use--one of my students said in my presence that if he didn't maintain at least a B in my class, he was going to stop smoking weed.

Should I give him a C, just to get him off the reefer?

149 Ghost707  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:46:11pm

re: #118 Bagua

Did he bow when he said no?

No, but it was one of the most asked questions (from the internet) during his town hall meeting, right before he left for the G20 summit.

150 NonNativeTexan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:46:19pm

I believe it is more harmful than we know. The more it is researched,
its harmful effects will be more realized.

Abuse of cannabis puts 500 a week in hospital
By James Kirkup and Richard Edwards
Last Updated: 9:59pm GMT 10/01/2008

The public health impact of the Government's decision to downgrade cannabis is disclosed today in official figures showing a 50 per cent rise in the number of people requiring medical treatment after using the drug.

Your view: how dangerous is cannabis?
Since cannabis was downgraded from a Class B to a Class C drug, the number of adults being treated in hospitals and clinics in England for its effects has risen to more than 16,500 a year. In addition, the number of children needing medical attention after smoking the drug has risen to more than 9,200.


Doctors say cannabis abuse can contribute to a series of mental health problems


Almost 500 adults and children are treated in hospitals and clinics every week for the effects of cannabis.

Its health toll is revealed in official data compiled by health authorities and obtained by The Daily Telegraph.

Drug campaigners last night said the figures proved Labour's decision to reclassify cannabis in January 2004, which made the penalties for its possession less severe, was badly mistaken and had sent out the wrong signals about it being a "soft" drug.

Doctors say cannabis abuse can contribute to mental health problems including forms of psychosis, paranoia and schizophrenia. There can be harmful physical side-effects, disrupting blood pressure and exacerbating heart and circulation disorders.


The data will add to the pressure on Gordon Brown to reverse its reclassification when a review of the decision by Home Office scientific advisers concludes in the Spring.

Elizabeth Burton-Phillips, a leading campaigner on drug issues since her son, Nick Mills, killed himself in despair at his addiction four years ago, said: "These results are shocking and dreadful. What more evidence do you need? You cannot sweep this under the carpet any longer. Children have to be told of the dangers of this what is wrongly called a soft-drug. It is extremely dangerous and it is destroying healthy, young minds."

151 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:46:23pm

re: #114 jdog29

If weed is legalized the bottom falls out of the price as people start growing it everywhere, so there is no tax advantages. Instead of a field of corn or soybeans, pot production.

Yeah man, I got a row of tomatoes, a row of cucumbers and 6 rows of weed.

Yeah man, can you remember back when weed was like illegal man?

Yeah, back then they just voted on who would play for the college football div. I national championship.

Yeah, back then we had never removed 10 zeros from our currency because of runaway inflation.

I think it is (or was) the largest cash crop in more than a few southern states.

152 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:46:28pm

re: #138 Sosigado

I really don't feel strongly about this, one way or the other, but I will say this - anyone who believes that pot is a totally benign substance, in terms of potential short-term and long-term detrimental psychological and physical effects is delusional.

But think of all the federal money that can be wasted just STUDYING this!

153 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:46:28pm

re: #144 Charles

Lunch is served !

154 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:46:31pm

re: #24 The Shadow Do

Anyone who has kids knows the answer to this question.

If I had to choose between the two, I would prefer that my kids (I don't have any yet) smoke marijuana instead of consuming alcohol. There is not a doubt in my mind that alcohol is far more dangerous.

155 Timbre  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:46:32pm

re: #121 jaunte

Except the anticipated revenue from the addicted usually falls short and has to be made up by the rest of the taxpayers.

That is another of my pet peeves. Money coming out of my paycheck to subsidize some idiot's stupidity/addiction/recreation. A real libertarian says, "Let them die."

156 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:46:43pm

re: #140 Salem

Not me, yet, but I live in Focus on the Family town so I'd have to spring for the DVD anyway.

It's delightful, if you have a certain warped mindset--although the ending is sort of stupid.

157 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:46:59pm

re: #101 Charles

Absolutely not the same at all.

Personally, I get more impaired from one joint of pot than from one drink of booze.
Also, there are way more alcohol users than pot users so the stats are skewed.
Bottom line, I'm not so sure there is very much difference in terms of societal risk.

158 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:47:06pm

biab

159 PSGInfinity  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:47:08pm

See? A pedantic thread with some real implications, and some real thought behind it. Sadly, it's already past my bedtime here in DCTown, so I bid you all a fond adieu..

160 Sheepdogess  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:47:17pm

Why not just take up a hobby, learn to play a musical instrument, knit sweaters, read Atlas Shrugged, or start a blog and make 1,000's of friends and a few foes. Drugs are such a waste. IMO.

161 M. Bensson-Levi  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:47:22pm

re: #16 jaunte

It won't happen; there's too big an industry built around pot being illegal.

re: #17 Gus 802

I don't think it's a gateway drug. What makes it a gateway drug is the illegal status that takes exposes pot users to a drug dealer sub-culture. Typically someone that sells pot will sell harder drugs. If pot was legal they wouldn't be exposed to that environment.

I think that you're both right. Sort of.
The industry built around pot being illegal, DEA et al, can still be employed to interdict, and prosecute other illegal drugs...but the alcohol industry, in all its forms, will be hard hit, and will therefore resist its legalization.

The current illegality of pot does make it a gateway drug of sorts. Not only does it bring pot smokers into contact with dealers who deal other drugs as well, but its use makes the smoker a criminal. Stepping over the line for pot puts the user on the other side of the law...once already there, one need not step over again to try a more dangerous drug. The threshold has already been crossed.

I'm all in favor of the decriminalization, distribution, and taxation of pot...and regulation, similar to how we regulate alcohol, and inappropriate intoxication.

May be the only good thing to come out of the Democrat/Obama government.

162 fpxr  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:47:25pm

re: #50 Sharmuta

First of all, I agree with your stance on child molestors, I am continually amazed at how light the sentences are for rapists and child molestors.

But back to your question...

1st of all, they (pot smokers) are currently breaking the law and if a law exists it should be enforced. We can't pick and choose which laws to follow and which ones to ignore and can't choose which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore.

2nd, the response argument you make (no harm no foul) is on the surface, sound, but can be applied to many other things. Are you for decrimializing heroin? LSD? cocaine? other controlled substances? How about running red lights at night when no one is around or attempting suicide, etc. My position is that if there is a law it should be enforeced if you don't like it, get it changed. Besides, this is a deviation of your original post that I originally commented on (which was a resource issue).

Regarding your original wasted resource point, ALL I was saying is that resources are always limited, but they need to be applied to enforece ALL laws.. it's not an either/or situation.

163 jelo  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:47:45pm

It is not going to be legalized cause the lawmakers today don't want to make it any easier for kids to toke and choke now than it was for them.

164 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:47:47pm

re: #137 ggt

Reefer Madness? What a piece of "f@cked-up" propaganda.

It was a humongous relentless campaign, Reefer Madness being one well-known excerpt.

165 traderjoe9  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:47:58pm

re: #129 m1150

113 charles:

No I'm quite sane and have spent a great deal of my life studying youth alcohol policy. I'm firmly convinced youth prohibition has led to all of the problems of general prohibition in the 20s and that the best way to avoid alcohol problems is to gradually introduce young people to alcohol in a non-glorified, non-forbidden fruit way from a young age, as is done in Southern European cultures with very low rates of alcoholism.

Are you a hypocrite?

I wouldn't refer to Europe as a model of sanity.

166 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:48:07pm

re: #138 Sosigado

I really don't feel strongly about this, one way or the other, but I will say this - anyone who believes that pot is a totally benign substance, in terms of potential short-term and long-term detrimental psychological and physical effects is delusional.

Absolutely correct. But, in moderation, like anything else...

167 Mich-again  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:48:12pm

re: #129 m1150

I'm firmly convinced youth prohibition has led to all of the problems of general prohibition in the 20s and that the best way to avoid alcohol problems is to gradually introduce young people to alcohol in a non-glorified, non-forbidden fruit way from a young age, as is done in Southern European cultures with very low rates of alcoholism.

When I was a kid we could always get beer and MD from party stores that sold to minors on the down-low. That did not prevent abuse.

168 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:48:23pm

I say legalize it & tax it.

Here's a little Santana:

Youtube Video
169 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:48:25pm

re: #51 Charles

That is the general impression. But in sheer numbers, those who use/abuse alcohol are way higher still than those who smoke weed, so it's hard to compare.
I think if you look into it, you'll find more than enough reports of crimes committed by people who had been smoking weed. Especially when it's mixed with other substances....whether Colt .45 or Cocaine.

170 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:48:39pm

re: #150 NonNativeTexan

What a load of garbage. Marijuana has helped many very sick people like AIDS and cancer patients. Are there side effects? Of course, but I think those numbers are grossly inflated that your citing.

171 formercorpsman  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:48:45pm

re: #124 ggt

Thanks ggt, because that was just one of the questions running through my mind.

Although I have not looked at one in a very long time, I swear I could recall a confirmatory diagnosis for this in the DSM.

This does pose numerous challenges with current policies already in place.

172 tokyobk  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:48:45pm

Legalize pot in all cases with alcohol-like restrictions on age, usage and driving.

Cocaine and Heroin and synthetic drugs I am not sure about and also hallucinogens are probably dangerous as well.

173 wee fury  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:48:49pm

[Link: www.nida.nih.gov...]
Some effects.

174 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:48:53pm

Sugar causes diabetes and a lot of other associated illnesses -- millions of deaths yearly. I think not only should pot remain illegal but we should consider banning other harmful substances. We should also consider banning all alcohol and tobacco.

///

175 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:48:55pm

Without having read the thread yet -- from past threads, I know there are some pro-legalization folks here -- I'll just jump in and give my two cents:

Time to Legalize Weed?

No.

Just because we can't stop it from being consumed, doesn't mean we should give it the stemp of societal approval.

Marijuana may be less noxious than heroin or cocaine or meth...but that doesn't mean it's good for you.

I've known many many many many pot-smokers in my day, and I don't like what I've seen. Talking to someone who is high is a total waste of time. And after years of use, a person gets into that "pot-head zone" that I find tragic. I've never known a pot-head to be insightful, entrepreneurial, or interesting. Sorry. Gotta be honest.

Driving while high is just as dangerous as driving while drunk. Marijuana, like alcohol, slows down response times and seriously impairs judgment. The first time someone gets killed after getting hit by someone legaly high on pot, you (the legalization advocate, whoever you may be) will feel a little guilty.

The second time, you'll feel really guilty.

The 1,000th time, your guilt will be so overwhelming you'll go into denial mode.

And don't give me that hooey about it being "just for adults." Alcohol is similarly "just for adults" and kids find every imaginable way to get alcohopl and get drunk. If pot is legalized, kid-usage will go way way up.

It may all be a moot point, because Obama has essentially already legalized pot in any state (such as California) that has a "medical marijuana" law. The Obama administration has announced they will not prosecute federal drug laws in medical-pot states.

And, frankly, I know it's a cliché, but in my extensive observation, marijuana is a "gateway drug": a substantial percentage of users I've known have moved on to more extreme drugs, with predictably deleterious consequences.

If you want a nation of spaced-out losers, vote for legalization.

176 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:49:03pm

Well, I don't use the stuff, because I just don't care for the nature of the buzz. Gives me vertigo, it does. And being a non-smoker, taking a toke of pot is hard on my lungs.

But I agree the stuff should be legalized, and treated much the same way as we treat alcoholic beverages. The object of the exercise is to decouple pot from the criminal milieu. Prohibition (of alcohol) was an enormous failure because it made the local bootlegger into a folk hero, and the gangsters who ran the booze into larger-than-life legends. Your average pot-smoker has the same sort of admiration and respect for pot dealers and drug smugglers as the average social drinker had for bootleggers in the Roaring 20's.

And what sort of message do we send to young people? We fill their heads with all sorts of nonsense about the dangers of pot; they try the stuff anyway, and soon learn that the "dangers" are either non-existent or exaggerated to a grotesque degree. That sets them up to disbelieve the very real dangers of drugs like cocaine, crystal meth, and heroin. And the criminal element is motivated to sell those latter products because the profit margin is far higher.

So sell pot using the same model you use for tobacco and/or alcohol. Sure, kids are going to get pot, via an "of-age" friend who bootlegs it for them, just as they get tobacco and alcohol now. But that is a manageable problem. We've managed, or perhaps tolerated it with alcohol and tobacco for generations now. But we will manage to decrease the contact between would-be pot buyers and soul-less criminals who are motivated by greed to push them into something harder and addictive.

Heck, even the drug culture draws a distinction between "dealers" and "pushers". Witness the song, "The Pusher" by Steppenwolf.

177 barere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:49:08pm

Let's get to the heart of the issue.

The USA was founded on principles of individual freedom.

Making criminals out of marijuana users is both costly and a betrayal of the principles of a free society.

178 brandon13  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:49:11pm

re: #148 SanFranciscoZionist

I now have a moral dilemma around pot use--one of my students said in my presence that if he didn't maintain at least a B in my class, he was going to stop smoking weed.

Should I give him a C, just to get him off the reefer?

You're kidding, right?

179 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:49:13pm

If we could just get back to the Joe Friday era of law enforcement all would be well.

180 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:49:39pm

re: #163 jelo

It is not going to be legalized cause the lawmakers today don't want to make it any easier for kids to toke and choke now than it was for them.

The sheer fact that some people consider Hemp to be 'OK' is half of the problem. As I said earlier in the thread .. people are losing their houses over this sort of stuff. At that point it goes beyond just a smoke and become a risk you take with EVERYTHING you have ever worked for and everything you have ever owned.

And its also an easy drug to plant on people (Nuff said)

181 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:49:56pm

re: #142 Sharmuta

It wasn't from drunk drivers. This is too personal for me to elaborate more. Needless to say- alcohol has destroyed many families in ways that marijuana can't compare.

Sorry {Sharmuta}.

182 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:02pm

re: #149 Ghost707

No, but it was one of the most asked questions (from the internet) during his town hall meeting, right before he left for the G20 summit.

Yep, more proof of the trouble we are in. There was serious things going on at the summit, yet all we hear about is, did he bow what gift did he give the queen, should we legalize weed, etc.

183 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:11pm

re: #175 zombie

Too true. We should help add stoners to the mix. Bad enough we have so many drunkards around.

/S

184 abu_garcia  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:12pm

I don't use the stuff, and wouldn't if it were legal, but the cost in lives and dollars of "the war on drugs" is just not worth it.

If it makes people as mellow as some say, it really ought to be provided in prisons.

I think trafficking should be controlled but if somebody raises a little for personal use in his own home that is not anybody's business but his (and his landlord's if he rents).

185 abolitionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:19pm

re: #137 ggt

Reefer Madness? What a piece of "f@cked-up" propaganda.

Agree. The actual original title, iirc, was Tell Your Children.

186 jaunte  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:19pm

The problem with trying to tax a weed is that it grows anywhere. The law enforcement efforts that exist now would be dwarfed by the effort expended by tax authorities trying to keep track of all the growers of legal pot.

187 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:23pm

re: #162 fpxr

My position is that if there is a law it should be enforeced if you don't like it, get it changed.

Hence the discussion. I think we're wasting money and time better spent on other crimes instead of persecuting a group of people who mostly want to consume their drug and be left alone.

188 traderjoe9  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:28pm

I don't know if the law has changed since I left but in Israel you can drink alcohol after your Bar Mitzvah...

189 mikalm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:31pm

I've often wondered about a compromise scenario, where cannabis is legal for adults to grow and consume in the privacy of their own homes. Any sales or distribution would be a criminal offense. This way, you wouldn't have the problems created by full legalization, and would cut both the gangs and commercial opportunists out of the deal...but you would also leave otherwise law-abiding users alone.

For the record, I enjoy cannabis occasionally, but am first and foremost a beer drinker.

190 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:46pm

re: #52 PSGInfinity

There are some studies out that indicate that it might damage the brain's ability to control paranoia. Which, if true, would certainly help put the Left's behavior in perspective...


I think cocaine has this effect. It throws the serotonin levels out of whack. The brain re wires itself. Anecdotal but I notice a lot of ex coke users also having severe anxiety issues after they quit.

191 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:47pm

re: #138 Sosigado

I really don't feel strongly about this, one way or the other, but I will say this - anyone who believes that pot is a totally benign substance, in terms of potential short-term and long-term detrimental psychological and physical effects is delusional.

Sosigado: then you wouldn't have a problem giving us a few links.

We've had Milton Friedman weighing in; and just to get you something else to put in your pipe and smoke, here's a wiki on the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse.

Almost every time an independent study group looks into marijuana, they conclude that its long-term effects are only bad for complete frickin' burnouts. Most of us manage to drink responsibly and most pot smokers smoke responsibly.

192 snowcrash  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:51pm

re: #151 ggt
Northern Cali is growers paradise. Mendocino County has the reputation.

193 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:53pm

Some people are just not going to give in on this. They've never smoked it themselves but are convinced we must all be protected from it, that legalizing it will bring society to ruins as if it hasn't been easily available all along.

194 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:58pm

They put people in jail for smoking marijuana? I thought they put people in jail for SELLING wholesale amounts. I never heard of someone arrested just for smoking one joint, unless they had large quantities for resale.

195 NonNativeTexan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:50:59pm

re: #170 Sharmuta
The effective chemical in weed that helps pain can be given in tablet form
without side effects.

196 hopperandadropper  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:51:29pm

If I thought prohibition would reduce the smoking of weed I would probably be in favor of prohibition. However, decades of experience show clearly that prohibition is not working. I think many young people try weed and realize that they haven't been told the truth about it. That leads them to think that what they've been told about Xanax, cocaine, and heroin is also untrue. That's a big problem.

Then again, this discussion is happening in the context of a society that thinks 18 year olds are old enough to kill, be killed, or have their legs blown off in the service of their country but not old enough to drink beer.

197 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:51:33pm

re: #169 tradewind

I think if you look into it, you'll find more than enough reports of crimes committed by people who had been smoking weed.

That's only because you can still do stuff when you're really stoned. Although it's not safe you can still drive a car, hold up a store, break into a house, etc. while really stoned. Severely drunk and you can't even walk much less commit a crime.

198 purple  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:51:51pm

Legalize it.
Who owns you?
If you own you, you can put whatever you want into your body. If someone else tells you what you can or can't do with your own body, then they own you.

I don't smoke it myself, btw.

199 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:52:13pm

A friend of mine is the daughter of old hippies--one thing I learned about them over the years was that they would not call the cops, even when it seemed like a very good idea to me, because they were worried about their stash being discovered.

I tried hard to convince them that the odds of cops being called to a nice suburban neighborhood over a loud party, and rummaging through the bedroom of the middle-aged couple who had called them looking for pot seemed vanishingly small. No go.

So we've got middle-class, otherwise very successful people, who won't call the authorities for help because they're protecting their weed.

I don't know whether this is an argument for legalization, or an argument for people to stop being so bloody stupid. But I know a lot of people who to some extent have separated themselves from normal social behavior to protect their pot--people who are actually very casual users.

200 abu_garcia  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:52:29pm

re: #89 m1150
Young brains are still developing and drugs, including alcohol, influence that development into the early twenties. Keeping kids away from drugs is important.

201 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:52:29pm

re: #148 SanFranciscoZionist

I now have a moral dilemma around pot use--one of my students said in my presence that if he didn't maintain at least a B in my class, he was going to stop smoking weed.

Should I give him a C, just to get him off the reefer?

No. Why should you violate your principles as an educator in a vain attempt to get a student to change his behavior over a promise he's unlikely to have ever intended to keep?

202 jordash1212  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:52:30pm

My only problem with legalizing is what guarantees do you have of successfully taxing it, and how can you determine who is over the limit if they are driving?

203 snowcrash  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:52:30pm

re: #195 NonNativeTexan
It is the delivery system. Inhailation bypasses digestion for nauseated chemo recipients.

204 kulhwch  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:52:34pm

Now, on the other hand, I have no idea why we tolerate the poppy fields of Afganistan.  Heroin/morphine are absolute life takers, and the very roots of the problem could be taken care of if we used some good defolliants on selective fields over there -- perhaps done by drone, said fields spotted by satellite.  Plus, it would cave their economy, maybe helping us in the war.  If we were concerned with largesse, we could always provide free seeds/seedlings for some other crop we would encourage ...

}:)     [ ... I have no idea why no one's suggested this before.]

205 Dustyvet  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:52:45pm

re: #153 Buster Bunny

Lunch is served !

Oh boy carrot salad...:)

206 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:52:51pm

re: #196 hopperandadropper

That's a good point. It was much harder to get alcohol than pot when I was a kid.

207 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:52:53pm

re: #175 zombie

You have nothing to apologize for. I agree emphatically.

208 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:52:55pm

BTW... how high was Penn Gillette when he named his first born child, a daughter ,...Moxie CrimeFighter Gillette.
Not joking, that's her name. Talk about your child abuse.......

209 Steve Rogers  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:53:07pm

re: #130 SanFranciscoZionist

How far does this go for you? All drugs are initially derived from natural substances.

I will pass the consistency test. All drugs should be legal for adults...with the resulting responsibilities that come with all rights. If an adult chooses to do drugs, they must pay any price that comes with it.

If all drugs were legal tomorrow, 99% of the population would not become heorin addicts. In fact, those who are currently addicted would be better able to receive the help they need because the stigma would be gone and they wouldn't fear incarceration and asset forfeiture and would much more likely seek help.

Most people have higher goals in life than to live in the gutter with a needle in their arm or a crack pipe in their mouth. And of those tiny few who do want to live that way, nothing will ever stop them. Keep in mind, most people are drug users, while only a tiny percentage are drug addicts who need help. It's best to look at drug addiction as a medical problem and not a law-enforcement problem. And if drugs were legal, that would bring the price down, stopping crimes committed to pay for the nearly 1000% (yes, that's one thousand percent) increase in price the black market causes. There would not be shootings over something legally available. When was the last time you ever heard of a shootout over a 6 pack of beer?

210 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:53:21pm

re: #170 Sharmuta

What a load of garbage. Marijuana has helped many very sick people like AIDS and cancer patients. Are there side effects? Of course, but I think those numbers are grossly inflated that your citing.

Actually, there appears to be some support of the idea that cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in those prone to it.

I agree the medical benefits outweigh this possible problem, but it is worth research

211 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:54:13pm

For the record, I'm not sure how I stand on this issue. I lean toward legalization, or at least decriminalization.

Some points to note:

1. This past election day, voters in Massachusetts approved a ballot initiative that decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. Now, getting caught with marijuana in Massachusetts is like a parking ticket. You pay a $100 fine, and that's it.

2. I wonder how the people who call this a right-wing fascist blog are going to react to the fact that most people here seem to support legalizing pot.

3. Back when I spent time on digg.com, there were a great many pro-marijuana activists there. They were, obviously, just people who enjoyed getting stoned, and didn't see any reason why the government should need to interfere. I applaud us lizards for coming up with far more sensible arguments here than they had. They were always arguing that marijuana should be legalized by posting these articles about miraculous things that it could do:

Scientists develop new marijuana-based antibiotic capable of killing drug-resistant superbugs!

Marijuana seeds may hold the key to developing an HIV vaccine!

Paper made from hemp fiber automatically corrects your spelling mistakes when you write on it!

212 NonNativeTexan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:54:17pm

re: #203 snowcrash

It is the delivery system. Inhailation bypasses digestion for nauseated chemo recipients.

Thanks for that, I wondered why the pills were not more common.

213 traderjoe9  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:54:27pm

I was first introduced to anti-drug/alcohol programs in elementary school. Back then, I thought there was no way I would ever use drugs; why would I, with all the bad things that apparently occur? Then I thought, maybe as I get older I lose that mindset - that something bad could happen?

I'm in my third year of high school, and more than half my school is doped at any given time. I still think its stupid and unnecessary. I don't know why other people are different. People who used to be normal walk around campus know, saying how they "got high this morning" and laughing about it like its cool. It's pretty sad.

214 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:54:32pm

re: #178 brandon13

You're kidding, right?

No, I'm not. Sadly.

215 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:54:39pm

What Joe Friday has to say about marijuana.

Youtube Video
216 nyc redneck  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:54:41pm

i'm going to say no.

217 Idle Drifter  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:54:52pm

re: #6 Sharmuta

I prefer beer to weed, I feel less paranoid drinking. On the serious side I've tried weed about three times I really don't understand the hype on both sides. The prohibitionists claim its a gateway drug when clearly it just makes people mellow out and raid the fridge. The pot heads have nothing but praise for what is a mediocre drug. I say legalize and tax it.

218 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:55:09pm

Totus says weed is OK.

219 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:56:02pm

re: #218 Racer X

Totus says weed is OK.

I always thought that was a cigarette. The coal looks to symmetrical.

220 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:56:07pm

Too

221 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:56:13pm

re: #201 NukeAtomrod

No. Why should you violate your principles as an educator in a vain attempt to get a student to change his behavior over a promise he's unlikely to have ever intended to keep?

Fair enough. It was just one of those 'oh good GRIEF, child' moments.

222 Dave the.....  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:56:24pm

Charles 144

Maybe, but after reviewing your comment history you are history.

Heh, wonder what his story is.....

223 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:56:53pm

re: #210 Bagua

Actually, there appears to be some support of the idea that cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in those prone to it.

I agree the medical benefits outweigh this possible problem, but it is worth research

Its a classic case of overuse vs occasional usage. If .. like any drug you abuse it .. you suffer detrimental effects. Alcohol will turn your liver into mush, smoking tobacco will ruin your lungs .. stunt your growth and poision your circulatory system, asprin will thin your arteries, caffeine will affect your short term memory. All of these are products of overuse. So stick Hemp in the same basket.

Please note I will refer to it as Hemp, the crude mexican name was given to demonse it.

224 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:56:55pm

re: #203 snowcrash

I had an adopted soldier once who was terminally ill with cancer at Walter Reed. They gave him some kind of marijuana mist that you can inhale.

225 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:57:22pm

re: #150 NonNativeTexan

The public health impact of the Government's decision to downgrade cannabis is disclosed today in official figures showing a 50 per cent rise in the number of people requiring medical treatment after using the drug.

Maybe the patients are just more willing to admit pot use because the punishment is less with the new classification? I don't know, but I'm much more skeptical of statistics since I read Freakonomics.

226 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:57:25pm

re: #194 Alouette

They put people in jail for smoking marijuana? I thought they put people in jail for SELLING wholesale amounts. I never heard of someone arrested just for smoking one joint, unless they had large quantities for resale.

Possesion of less than an ounce is usually no big deal today, but thirty years ago if you were pulled over by the Texas highway patrol and they found a single pot seed in your car, they were only too glad to throw you in the pokey with actual criminals.

227 Randall Gross  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:57:29pm

I haven't smoked in about 20 years ( I started with thirty, but then had a couple of those "well there was that time in...." remembrances) but I favor legalization.

228 mikalm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:57:50pm

re: #208 tradewind

Penn Gillette is utterly anal when it comes to the subject of the actual use of intoxicants. I believe he once said that he gets up and leaves tables at restaurants if anybody there dares order a drink.

As for his daughter's middle name: Penn seems to be one of those people who have the Perpetual Irony Machine running 24/7. That kid is going to stage the mother of all teenage rebellions in a few years.

229 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:00pm

re: #223 Buster Bunny

The three most abused drugs in America are alcohol, nicotine and caffeine!

230 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:07pm

re: #154 Mad Mullah

If I had to choose between the two, I would prefer that my kids (I don't have any yet) smoke marijuana instead of consuming alcohol. There is not a doubt in my mind that alcohol is far more dangerous.

The only reason we think this may be true is that we've never encountered a society in which pot use is on par with what alcohol use is today.

231 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:12pm

re: #223 Buster Bunny

Its a classic case of overuse vs occasional usage. If .. like any drug you abuse it .. you suffer detrimental effects. Alcohol will turn your liver into mush, smoking tobacco will ruin your lungs .. stunt your growth and poision your circulatory system, asprin will thin your arteries, caffeine will affect your short term memory. All of these are products of overuse. So stick Hemp in the same basket.

Please note I will refer to it as Hemp, the crude mexican name was given to demonse it.

There you go. Moderation is always the key. People that "wake and bake" do not follow that rule which makes it the same as the 24 hour drunkard that drinks all day long.

232 fpxr  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:26pm

re: #187 Sharmuta

Understood, but all I am saying is that if it is on the books it should be enforced.

Also, the "no harm no foul argument" in my mind is not enough... it is too broad and can be applied to too many other things which I would not like to see legalized.

233 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:38pm

Decriminalize - Yes.

Legalize - No.

Leave the government out of it. They will just tax the hell out of it.

234 solomonpanting  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:48pm

Some "driving under the influence" information

Nationally, 38,000 high school students reported that they crashed while driving under the influence of marijuana in 2001.

235 brandon13  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:54pm

re: #214 SanFranciscoZionist

No, I'm not. Sadly.

So you're seriously considering giving him a "C" in the class instead of the grade he earned with the hope that he'll actually follow through on his promise?

That's pretty ridiculous, imo

236 leereyno  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:54pm

The laws against marijuana have never been about the drug itself, but about the kinds of people that polite society believes to be the primary consumers of the drug; namely underemployed uneducated ignorant white trash and what can be collectively described as "hippies."

The unspoken and unexamined assumption that inspires the prohibition of marijuana is that banning the drug will make these unsavory and unpopular people will go away as well.

Well I hate to break it to everyone, but pot doesn't make someone an inbred redneck, and it doesn't turn someone into a hippy. These people are as they are regardless of whether pot is legal, illegal, or even exists in the first place.

The notion that it is a "gateway drug" is also highly questionable. If someone is stupid enough to start doing coke, crystal meth, heroin, or any of the other hard drugs, then the availability of marijuana isn't going to affect that outcome. Stupid self destructive people do stupid and self destructive things. Drugs are simply the synthetic alternative to natural selection. Without lions and tigers and bears to weed out the losers, we have drugs to help them weed themselves out, a truly brilliant solution if you ask me. The only real problem with drugs is not that they kill, but that they take so damned long to work and create so much collateral damage.

237 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:56pm

re: #229 Sharmuta

The three most abused drugs in America are alcohol, nicotine and caffeine!

So why not add Hemp to that list? You'd make a killing on the taxable component. Enough to add an extra revenue stream to the federal economy.

238 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:58:59pm

I'm going to wake up my husband and see if he wants something to eat.

Later all.

239 barere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:59:08pm

re: #233 Racer X

Decriminalize - Yes.

Legalize - No.

Leave the government out of it. They will just tax the hell out of it.

And ...this is a problem *because*?

240 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:59:12pm

re: #213 traderjoe9

I was first introduced to anti-drug/alcohol programs in elementary school. Back then, I thought there was no way I would ever use drugs; why would I, with all the bad things that apparently occur? Then I thought, maybe as I get older I lose that mindset - that something bad could happen?

I'm in my third year of high school, and more than half my school is doped at any given time. I still think its stupid and unnecessary. I don't know why other people are different. People who used to be normal walk around campus know, saying how they "got high this morning" and laughing about it like its cool. It's pretty sad.

Interesting anecdote.

Take it from someone who has been around the block a few times: Most of those kids in your school who get high in the morning and think it's cool will end up as deadbeats, losers or useless. Don't join their ranks.

241 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:59:17pm

re: #219 Gus 802

I always thought that was a cigarette. The coal looks to symmetrical.

The eyes say weed.

242 tokyobk  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:59:27pm

I have seen this TOTUS reference to Obama. What does the first 'T' stand for?

By the way, I have a great romance with a hippie chick and it was fantastic except she could totally go into her own world and we broke up over it. She smoked every day. I still thin it should be legal, checked for pesticides and PCP, and taxed.

243 formercorpsman  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:59:28pm

I think we try legalizing it. What the hell.

Once it becomes taxed to the point of cigarettes, folks will start growing their own, and the circle jerk is complete.

244 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:59:32pm

re: #175 zombie

Without having read the thread yet -- from past threads, I know there are some pro-legalization folks here -- I'll just jump in and give my two cents:

No.

Just because we can't stop it from being consumed, doesn't mean we should give it the stemp of societal approval.

Marijuana may be less noxious than heroin or cocaine or meth...but that doesn't mean it's good for you.

I've known many many many many pot-smokers in my day, and I don't like what I've seen. Talking to someone who is high is a total waste of time. And after years of use, a person gets into that "pot-head zone" that I find tragic. I've never known a pot-head to be insightful, entrepreneurial, or interesting. Sorry. Gotta be honest.

Driving while high is just as dangerous as driving while drunk. Marijuana, like alcohol, slows down response times and seriously impairs judgment. The first time someone gets killed after getting hit by someone legaly high on pot, you (the legalization advocate, whoever you may be) will feel a little guilty.

The second time, you'll feel really guilty.

The 1,000th time, your guilt will be so overwhelming you'll go into denial mode.

And don't give me that hooey about it being "just for adults." Alcohol is similarly "just for adults" and kids find every imaginable way to get alcohopl and get drunk. If pot is legalized, kid-usage will go way way up.

It may all be a moot point, because Obama has essentially already legalized pot in any state (such as California) that has a "medical marijuana" law. The Obama administration has announced they will not prosecute federal drug laws in medical-pot states.

And, frankly, I know it's a cliché, but in my extensive observation, marijuana is a "gateway drug": a substantial percentage of users I've known have moved on to more extreme drugs, with predictably deleterious consequences.

If you want a nation of spaced-out losers, vote for legalization.

*sigh*

245 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:59:35pm

re: #235 brandon13

So you're seriously considering giving him a "C" in the class instead of the grade he earned with the hope that he'll actually follow through on his promise?

That's pretty ridiculous, imo

Sorry, no. I was being sarcastic about grading him down, serious about his apparent little bargain with himself.

246 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 8:59:55pm

re: #241 Racer X

The eyes say weed.

Yeah. But I can make those eyes too. ;)

247 axegrinder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:00:05pm

I'd be ok with being able to use anything you grow yourself in your own backyard. Manufacture(chemically-like meth or designer drugs) and sales of drugs, of course, have to be regulated. Just my 2 bits.

248 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:00:06pm

re: #237 Buster Bunny

So why not add Hemp to that list? You'd make a killing on the taxable component. Enough to add an extra revenue stream to the federal economy.

Even without taxing it, you'd add a lot of revenue from the shifting away from enforcement on pot towards other crimes.

249 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:00:18pm

re: #227 Thanos

I haven't smoked in about 20 years ( I started with thirty, but then had a couple of those "well there was that time in...." remembrances) but I favor legalization.

The number of people who admit to smoking pot on this thread tells me we have widespread breaking of the prohibition of it. Isn't that really what required prohibition of alcohol to go by the wayside. Pot is also something that was only criminalized relatively recently. Society did not collapse due to pot use being formerly legal.

250 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:00:27pm

Major damage in Italian earthquake - University dorm collapsed. In l'Aquila, 50 km from Rome. 6.3.
- BBC World News

251 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:00:40pm

re: #210 Bagua

Actually, there appears to be some support of the idea that cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in those prone to it.

And there are countless legal drugs which are advertised heavily on various television channels which may cause death if used in a non appropriate fashion. Look at all of the disclaimers that accompany those artificially manufactered legal drugs cooked up by some chemical company in their advertisements. The side effects often seem worse than the original ailments.

252 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:00:49pm

re: #223 Buster Bunny

Its a classic case of overuse vs occasional usage. If .. like any drug you abuse it .. you suffer detrimental effects. Alcohol will turn your liver into mush, smoking tobacco will ruin your lungs .. stunt your growth and poision your circulatory system, asprin will thin your arteries, caffeine will affect your short term memory. All of these are products of overuse. So stick Hemp in the same basket.

Please note I will refer to it as Hemp, the crude mexican name was given to demonse it.

No, this is different from the "over-use" effect, the theory is that use of Cannabis can induce schizophrenia in those so inclined. On an anecdotal level, I believe I've seen this effect in action.

253 brandon13  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:00:50pm

re: #230 ggt

The only reason we think this may be true is that we've never encountered a society in which pot use is on par with what alcohol use is today.

That and the fact that no one in the history of the world has ever overdosed on marijuana.

254 hopperandadropper  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:01:01pm

re: #213 traderjoe9

Let's put it this way: there aren't too many situations in life where being stupid and paranoid gives you an advantage.

255 Sosigado  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:01:04pm

re: #191 Zimriel

Sosigado: then you wouldn't have a problem giving us a few links.

We've had Milton Friedman weighing in; and just to get you something else to put in your pipe and smoke, here's a wiki on the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse.

Almost every time an independent study group looks into marijuana, they conclude that its long-term effects are only bad for complete frickin' burnouts. Most of us manage to drink responsibly and most pot smokers smoke responsibly.

I don't feel the need to provide links. I help people with chemical dependancy issues. Pot is a gateway drug for many, as Zombie implied. Pot can be both physically and psychologically harmful, and can create an extreme sense of dependancy. I've seen it firsthand. Trust me.

256 snowcrash  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:01:30pm

I will "just say no" because that is what I tell my kids. I never was a fan of getting stupid with weed.

257 brandon13  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:01:33pm

re: #245 SanFranciscoZionist

Sorry, no. I was being sarcastic about grading him down, serious about his apparent little bargain with himself.

Ahh, OK.

258 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:01:34pm

re: #224 Pvt Bin Jammin

I had an adopted soldier once who was terminally ill with cancer at Walter Reed. They gave him some kind of marijuana mist that you can inhale.

Are you sure about the inhaling part?

There is a drug called dronabinol, which is a synthetic form of THC, the best-known active compound in marijuana. It's use as an appetite stimulant in cancer patients, and sometimes used as an anti-nausea drug.

In general, if you want to get a particular concentration of a drug in someone's bloodstream, smoking it is a very inexact way to do it. And inhaling a mist probably wouldn't be so great either.

259 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:02:13pm

re: #239 barere

And ...this is a problem *because*?

The government will probably do something stupid and reduce the potency to headache dirt weed.

When has government involvement helped anything?

260 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:02:18pm

re: #250 Spare O'Lake

Major damage in Italian earthquake - University dorm collapsed. In l'Aquila, 50 km from Rome. 6.3.
- BBC World News

OMG Any casualty reports yet?

261 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:02:28pm

re: #164 Salem

It was a humongous relentless campaign, Reefer Madness being one well-known excerpt.

I've read quite a bit on it and it was Reefer Madness by those not smoking it wanting to ban it.

262 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:02:28pm

re: #240 zombie

Interesting anecdote.

Take it from someone who has been around the block a few times: Most of those kids in your school who get high in the morning and think it's cool will end up as deadbeats, losers or useless. Don't join their ranks.

I mentioned the wake and bake crowd previously. There's nothing society can do to change that regardless of the legality because we are then dealing with substance abusers. If they didn't have pot available these same people would be waking up and drinking beer. It's not because of the substance but the psychology of the abuser.

263 abu_garcia  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:02:31pm

re: #236 leereyno

Drugs are simply the synthetic alternative to natural selection.


I agree.

264 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:02:50pm

re: #233 Racer X

Decriminalize - Yes.

Legalize - No.

Leave the government out of it. They will just tax the hell out of it.

It never should have been illegalized in the first place.

265 nyc redneck  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:02:59pm

re: #256 snowcrash

I will "just say no" because that is what I tell my kids. I never was a fan of getting stupid with weed.

re: #216 nyc redneck

i'm going to say no.

gmta

266 Steve Rogers  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:03:06pm

To all who claim the government must keep pot illegal so as to keep people from smoking it, I have but one question for you: Are you telling me that the only reason you aren't currently smoking pot is because the government says it is illegal? Nonsense! You don't smoke it for the same reason I don't smoke it: You don't want to! People aren't clamoring to smoke pot but magically stopped from doing so just because the government says it is a no-no. If it were legalized tomorrow, there would be a slight spike in use from people who are curious, and then it would drop right back down to where it currently is. No amount of laws will prevent people from doing it.

There seems to be an inherent desire in human beings to alter their minds. For some people, something as simple as music does the trick. For others, sky-diving or bungee jumping provide the stimulus. For others it is beer. For others it may be one of a million different acts or chemicals. For some people it is pot. I don't understand it. But I'll be damned if I want my tax dollars to pay for bullets to shoot at them and bars to keep them locked up for years just because some people have a sick desire to enforce their morality on other people at gunpoint!

267 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:03:26pm

re: #252 Bagua

No, this is different from the "over-use" effect, the theory is that use of Cannabis can induce schizophrenia in those so inclined. On an anecdotal level, I believe I've seen this effect in action.

On the same basis .. we should ban peanut butter because there is a small section of the worlds population that will register a high allergic reaction to the substance.

We live in a world where we can even work out who would be most likely to be at risk. So .. mark it as a problem category for the person concerned and let the rest of us make our own personal and responsible judgements as to what to imbibe, smoke or even inject into our systems.

268 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:03:38pm

re: #251 Mad Mullah

And there are countless legal drugs which are advertised heavily on various television channels which may cause death if used in a non appropriate fashion. Look at all of the disclaimers that accompany those artificially manufactered legal drugs cooked up by some chemical company in their advertisements. The side effects often seem worse than the original ailments.

Yes, which is why many medications are only available by prescription, not"legalized" for over-the-counter use.

269 realwest  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:03:41pm

Evening y'all - are we still On Topic?

270 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:04:03pm

re: #269 realwest

Evening y'all - are we still On Topic?

Ganja mon.

271 axegrinder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:04:05pm

re: #241 Racer X

The eyes say weed.

So does the goofy way he's holding it.

272 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:04:17pm

re: #269 realwest

Evening y'all - are we still On Topic?

Fraid so realwest .. but that can change.

273 jaunte  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:04:31pm

re: #269 realwest

The interest level is high.

274 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:04:53pm

re: #171 formercorpsman

Thanks ggt, because that was just one of the questions running through my mind.

Although I have not looked at one in a very long time, I swear I could recall a confirmatory diagnosis for this in the DSM.

This does pose numerous challenges with current policies already in place.

It's difficult to know because of the legal barriers to even obtaining samples of pot to study. It's a big no-no, or it was last time I was reading about it (6-7 years ago). IIRC, we don't have good empirical data outside hospital & police records.

275 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:05:13pm

Can't we all just get a bong?

276 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:05:28pm

re: #129 m1150

113 charles:

No I'm quite sane and have spent a great deal of my life studying youth alcohol policy. I'm firmly convinced youth prohibition has led to all of the problems of general prohibition in the 20s and that the best way to avoid alcohol problems is to gradually introduce young people to alcohol in a non-glorified, non-forbidden fruit way from a young age, as is done in Southern European cultures with very low rates of alcoholism.

Are you a hypocrite?

I was with you until the period after "alcoholism." That last sentence is rude and uncalled-for.

277 barere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:05:28pm

re: #275 Racer X

Can't we all just get a bong?

Pipe down.

278 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:05:42pm

re: #258 Last Mohican

Are you sure about the inhaling part?

There is a drug called dronabinol, which is a synthetic form of THC, the best-known active compound in marijuana. It's use as an appetite stimulant in cancer patients, and sometimes used as an anti-nausea drug.

In general, if you want to get a particular concentration of a drug in someone's bloodstream, smoking it is a very inexact way to do it. And inhaling a mist probably wouldn't be so great either.

The impression I got from his buddy who used to write back to me was that it was something he inhaled rather than swallowed. Maybe I am remembering it wrong. It's been a few years.

279 Dave the.....  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:05:44pm

Zombie, your views are closer to mine.

And for those that advocate total legalization of narcotics (it came up again this past week with Mexico's problems).......when Bill Buckley was alive, I always wanted to challenge him to take meth on a daily basis for a couple of weeks. Then come back and discuss full blown legalization.

280 Salamantis  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:05:45pm

It would undoubtedly be a plus for personal freedom of choice to legalize marijuana, and its legalization would be a financial benefit in many different ways. Its sale could be taxed, its production and sale would provide many jobs with taxable incomes, and the massive law enforcement/incarceration complex that has arisen around it could be sharply attenuated, at great financial savings. Drug law enforcement could also be concentrated and focused upon ferreting out truly dangerous and physically addictive drugs such as meth, heroin and cocaine, and many less poeple would be exposed to these substances if they could buy marijuana legally or legally grow their own, rather than having to resort to drug dealers who also sell such harmful substances in order to get their marijuana.

And ending the police pursuit of pot smokers would go a long way towards restoring the bonds of trust between law enforcement and the general citizenry that has been badly damaged by having friends and family members apprehended, prosecuted, sentenced, fined and incarcerated, and having their homes and vehicles seized and sold, for its casual recreational use.

No one would be stuffing lit marijuana cigarettes into the mouths of people who do not desire them. And it is not a matter of whether one personally desires to smoke marijuana or not; it is a matter of allowing other citizens the right to make their own independent decisions, which may differ from one's own. In a free society, people must be allowed to choose from among a range of options, and be permitted to make personal choices between them that other people would not themselves make, and of which they may even disapprove; only in totalitarianisms and theocracies are all citizens' actions either mandated or forbidden.

281 BLBfootballs  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:05:45pm

re: #2 Charles

And no, I am not a pot smoker. Sorry, stalkers.

Ha!

A Canadian friend told me what the de facto (maybe de jure) policy is up there. Possession is illegal but not criminal -- it results in a fine. Sales/transactions are illegal... I don't know the penalty yet.

I think something like that basically makes sense in the States.... What I'd really like is for the criminal penalty for possession to remain on the books, but only so it can be taken out of the freezer to be used in extreme cases where it's needed. (That's an ideal anyway)

But then I read stories like...

re: #77 pegcity

im in canada, its borderline legal here, no one cares, thats a problem and now it turns out weed is being used to purchase cocaine and automatic weapons and is implicated in more than 16 shootings in surrey vancouver since Janurary.

...and I start to think that it's nowhere near as simple as I'd like to be. One thing I'm sure of: jailing people for simple possession is just insane.

282 snowcrash  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:05:56pm

re: #258 Last Mohican
Inhalation provides rapid delivery. Ingestion, when someone is vomiting or has decreased gastric motility isn't going to do the job.

283 tokyobk  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:06:04pm

re: #266 Steve Rogers

If pot were legal in the US I would smoke it several times a year so in a sense, yes, law abiding citizens will abide by the law. I don't smoke because it is illegal and you never know what you are really smoking. I had a bad experience in the late 80's and in Japan a foreigner can be kicked out of the country for several years for possession.

284 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:06:13pm

re: #210 Bagua

Not merely exacerbate, but in people who may have a predisposition, ( generally young males ) actually ' flip the switch '. There's a lot of research going on now re this and some other phenomena, such as DNA damage leading to genetic mutations in sperm.
A moderate user of alcohol can generally expect a predictable result from drinking x amount of alcohol within a certain time, allowing for some variables, and there is a measurable blood level. How would a moderate pot smoker measure the effect on his driving, say? Is there a blood level of THC that is measurable?

285 M. Bensson-Levi  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:06:17pm

re: #186 jaunte

The problem with trying to tax a weed is that it grows anywhere. The law enforcement efforts that exist now would be dwarfed by the effort expended by tax authorities trying to keep track of all the growers of legal pot.

Don't know that's such a big issue. We exert an awful lot of effort now trying to root out illegal pot growers, and moonshiners avoiding alcohol taxes. Seems close to the same, to me.

286 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:07:03pm

re: #269 realwest

Evening y'all - are we still On Topic?

Yep, this thread is on topic. On that topic: I'm fairly hostile to all intoxicants, and I'm not in favor of legalizing another one.

287 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:07:21pm

re: #260 Pvt Bin Jammin

OMG Any casualty reports yet?

Initial report - 2 fatalities, other people trapped in church tower, university dorm, private homes. Hilly area, medieval town, old buildings.

288 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:07:44pm

re: #277 barere

Pipe down.

Weed like to stay on topic.

289 Dave the.....  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:07:49pm

Sharmuta

The three most abused drugs in America are alcohol, nicotine and caffeine!


Hey, I only do an occasional cigar. As far as the other two go.....I can quite at any time. I just don't want to. Don't judge me.

290 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:08:01pm

re: #276 Alberta Oil Peon

I was with you until the period after "alcoholism." That last sentence is rude and uncalled-for.

Its ok Albera Oil Peon. We have successfully roasted his gameys and he wont be creating havoc any more. Some slices are still left but they are going fast.

291 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:08:14pm

re: #284 tradewind

Yes, that is what I meant, that it will be activated in some-one who would otherwise not experience it at that point in their lives.

292 IslandLibertarian  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:08:18pm

re: #269 realwest

Evening y'all - are we still On Topic Pot?

Heard a great comparison the other day.
Tobacco use is dropping off because of EDUCATION, not illegality.
I say let anyone do what they want, but take responsibility for it. All employers have the right to test for drugs. And addicts get to line up for treatment or live in the gutter.

/I've lost family to the shit.............

293 Randall Gross  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:08:30pm

re: #249 BryanS

The number of people who admit to smoking pot on this thread tells me we have widespread breaking of the prohibition of it. Isn't that really what required prohibition of alcohol to go by the wayside. Pot is also something that was only criminalized relatively recently. Society did not collapse due to pot use being formerly legal.

Well I was in a state where it was legal. (Alaska).

294 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:08:46pm

re: #288 Killgore Trout

Weed like to stay on topic.

Hey! Are you trying to nip this topic in the bud? //

295 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:08:49pm

I remember reading that the Israeli army was looking into treating combat fatigue with marijuana, I'm not sure what the current policy is.

296 Timbre  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:02pm

You legalizers need to beware of toxic marijuana grown in contaminated soil. Cadmium poisoning is dreadful.

297 formercorpsman  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:13pm

re: #274 ggt

I was thinking along the lines of folks who have a prescription card as an adjunct in care for some other condition.

However, drug abuse is listed as a disease. I see a big can of worms as it relates to standing policies, definitions, and then trying to circumvent current laws, definitions, you name it.

All the way down the line.

298 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:27pm

re: #255 Sosigado

I don't feel the need to provide links. I help people with chemical dependancy issues. Pot is a gateway drug for many, as Zombie implied. Pot can be both physically and psychologically harmful, and can create an extreme sense of dependancy. I've seen it firsthand. Trust me.

First off, it rubs me the wrong way when I ask, politely, for some statistics and the response I get is "I don't feel the need, I have personal experience, trust me".

I don't trust you; you're some anonymous dude I found in a website comment board. I don't expect you to trust me either. I do trust Milton Friedman, and independent task forces.

Your experience is with people who have problems. The people who don't have problems are not the people with whom you must deal. You are seeing a rose bush and you are describing it as a thorn bush.

299 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:37pm

re: #194 Alouette

They put people in jail for smoking marijuana? I thought they put people in jail for SELLING wholesale amounts. I never heard of someone arrested just for smoking one joint, unless they had large quantities for resale.

It depends on the circumstances. Sometimes residue and paraphernalia are inconsequential in an arrest at other times they lead to arrest.

300 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:37pm

re: #296 Timbre

You legalizers need to beware of toxic marijuana grown in contaminated soil. Cadmium poisoning is dreadful.

Really? We should ban oil painting. :)

301 So?  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:38pm

Legalize. Should have been done years ago. People have, are and will always smoke dope. Put a huge crimp on organized crime/cartels/etc.

Tax money galore. In my city alone (east coast) they estimate 5000 homes are being used as grow houses. The profit? 3 million for a 3 month growth period. Now you see why it won't go away. And we're not talking about the great weed of British Columbia that trickles down the west coast or grass from Mexico.

LEGALIZE and stop putzing around with a nonsensical war on drugs. There never was a war and never will be. Just look at the poppy fields producing opium in Afghanistan. Those fields could be destroyed in a week if the powers that be wanted to.

302 fpxr  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:43pm

re: #269 realwest

Evening y'all - are we still On Topic?

Well, someone called drugs "the synthetic alternative to natural selection" so there's still hope we can veer into a creationist/evolution food fight!

303 jaunte  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:48pm

re: #285 M. Bensson-Levi

What I mean is, the present law enforcement effort focuses on commercial growers, but if everyone with a grow-light is considered a potential tax-evader, the enforcement effort is vastly enlarged.

304 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:09:58pm

re: #238 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm going to wake up my husband and see if he wants something to eat.

Later all.

LOL You are kidding right?

305 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:10:03pm

marijuana should be mandatory for some of the angry people on this blog

306 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:10:22pm

re: #293 Thanos

Well I was in a state where it was legal. (Alaska).

State law, not federal as far as I know--I'm just thinking of the fed's decision to go after pot use in California where it was decriminalized for "medical" use.

307 barere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:10:27pm

re: #304 Wishing

LOL You are kidding right?

I recommend Doritos for a case of the munchies.

308 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:10:28pm

re: #288 Killgore Trout

Weed like to stay on topic.

That pun is stinking up the joint.

309 lizardbennet  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:10:51pm

I don't think the problem is whether or not pot is dangerous.

Who's going to open a pot production or distribution plant when all that's going to happen is they will get sued by the first person to get injured while stoned or by a stoned person?

I can't get a freak'n vicodin tablet to save my life now for my migraines because some a*&holes sued abused, OD'ed or sued doctors for their addictions. I think people are either incredibly stupid about the drugs they take, or they simply won't take responsibility for themselves.

310 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:10:54pm

Bud

311 Randall Gross  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:10:59pm

re: #294 Gus 802

Hey! Are you trying to nip this topic in the bud? //

I'm having trouble making sense of me, uh.

312 mikalm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:11:08pm

re: #294 Gus 802

Hey! Are you trying to nip this topic in the bud? //

No, he's just trying to hash out things.

313 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:11:16pm

re: #296 Timbre

You legalizers need to beware of toxic marijuana grown in contaminated soil. Cadmium poisoning is dreadful.

That's a good point, and maybe if it was legalised they could fine the crap out of crooks who sell weed that is grown on poisoned land.

So maybe you should have directed your comment at the anti-legalisers.

314 NY Nana  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:11:18pm

re: #6 Sharmuta

A bit more dangerous than beer....see this.

315 So?  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:11:59pm

re: #266 Steve Rogers

To all who claim the government must keep pot illegal so as to keep people from smoking it, I have but one question for you: Are you telling me that the only reason you aren't currently smoking pot is because the government says it is illegal? Nonsense! You don't smoke it for the same reason I don't smoke it: You don't want to! People aren't clamoring to smoke pot but magically stopped from doing so just because the government says it is a no-no. If it were legalized tomorrow, there would be a slight spike in use from people who are curious, and then it would drop right back down to where it currently is. No amount of laws will prevent people from doing it.

There seems to be an inherent desire in human beings to alter their minds. For some people, something as simple as music does the trick. For others, sky-diving or bungee jumping provide the stimulus. For others it is beer. For others it may be one of a million different acts or chemicals. For some people it is pot. I don't understand it. But I'll be damned if I want my tax dollars to pay for bullets to shoot at them and bars to keep them locked up for years just because some people have a sick desire to enforce their morality on other people at gunpoint!

Not just humans, but certain animals lick or chew certain plants or roots to get high. I think it's built into our evolutionary brain to get high. For those who never have, I guess you win a prize.

316 Steve Rogers  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:12:01pm

How many people opposed to legalizing pot for adults give their children a mind-altering addictive drug? It's called caffeine and it's in many soft drinks and most chocolate. Gasp! The horror!

317 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:12:02pm

re: #300 Gus 802

Really? We should ban oil painting. :)

Just ban modern art. I have a thing about red painted canvases expressing things. Or a stack of bricks meant to inspire me.

318 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:12:03pm

Italy Earthquake

319 tokyobk  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:12:22pm

My great-grandmother apparently grew and smoked it for her arthritis -- she said.

320 Sosigado  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:12:24pm

re: #298 Zimriel


I don't trust you; you're some anonymous dude I found in a website comment board. I don't expect you to trust me either. I do trust Milton Friedman, and independent task forces.

Fine. Then I guess we're even, aren't we?

321 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:12:57pm

re: #190 hazzyday

I think cocaine has this effect. It throws the serotonin levels out of whack. The brain re wires itself. Anecdotal but I notice a lot of ex coke users also having severe anxiety issues after they quit.

IIRC, cocaine is a noradrenaline-uptake-inhibitor. Abuse of cocaine fries the noradrenaline receptors. Which, can cause the person to have uncontrollable anxiety.

IIRC, alcohol has a more direct affect on serotonin levels.

Pot affects some other neuro-transmitters that I can't remember. One is the same a chocolate.

I used to know all this, but I'd have to look it up now.

322 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:13:03pm

re: #305 SpaceJesus

marijuana should be mandatory for some of the angry people on this blog

That would fine as long as we can make more contact with reality mandatory for you.

323 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:13:11pm

re: #282 snowcrash

Inhalation provides rapid delivery. Ingestion, when someone is vomiting or has decreased gastric motility isn't going to do the job.

I agree that inhalation provides for more rapid delivery, as well as allowing for use of a drug in someone who's vomiting. And it also gets around first-pass hepatic metabolism. But the usual solution to all that is to inject a drug intravenously, unless its site of action is in the lungs themselves.

I'm not aware of an intravenous form of dronabinol, though. Or an inhaled form, for that matter.

This actually brings up another point. The most serious adverse health effects of marijuana probably result from the toxicity of the smoke, not the psychoactive drug. If it's going to be legalized, perhaps someone should start selling pills, or brownies, or something, so that people don't need to risk giving themselves lung cancer to get high.

324 Sosigado  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:13:12pm

re: #305 SpaceJesus

marijuana should be mandatory for some of the angry people on this blog

Fuck you.

325 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:13:13pm

re: #317 Buster Bunny

Just ban modern art. I have a thing about red painted canvases expressing things. Or a stack of bricks meant to inspire me.

What do you mean? You don't think a milk crate chained to a wall is art? //

326 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:13:38pm

In today's world everything is a gateway, to the next addiction. When folks wise up their addictions they go by the wayside. The govt is fighting an expensive losing battle they easily could be winning if only they taxed it like everything else.

327 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:13:43pm

re: #319 tokyobk

My great-grandmother apparently grew and smoked it for her arthritis -- she said.

Its apparently a really good thing for pain relief. So use it for what it was designed for rather than inventing excuses for turning old ladies into criminal types.

328 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:14:11pm

One of the things I do all the time is ponder the real reasons that people have for their opinions; often, I've concluded, it's not necessarily the reasons they think they have. I even do this analysis on myself, and on this topic, I came to a surprising conclusion.

Here is my actual fundamental reason for not wanting to legalize marijuana:

------------

Our brain is wired to experience pain when we do something "wrong" and pleasure when we do something "right." One of the most pleasurable sensations, for whatever bio-evolutionary reason, is what we call "a feeling of accomplishment." The satisfaction of completing a task, and completing it well.

Drugs (marijuana in particular) are essentially a shortcut to that sensation. No need to actually achieve anything or actually solve a problem or actually complete a task well -- just smoke a joint and you feel as if you have done so.

The end result is that the pot-smoker has no motivation to achieve anything in reality. They can get that good "reward" feeling by just lighting up.

But the consequence of this, viewed economically, is that society will lose these people as productive members. Druggies will not add to the communal good through their efforts, because they're too busy taking the shortcut to pleasure.

This is the reason why pot-heads so frequently do become "losers" -- because they short-circuited their ambition by cheating with a quick shot of insta-satisfaction.

It's not so much resentment on my part that people get to experience pleasure without having done anything to earn it (though to be completely honest, that aspect does play a role); but rather that widespread marijuana usage will inescapably lead to societal decline as more and more people enter into the "loser zone" and cease being productive members of society.

329 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:14:13pm

re: #193 Salem

Some people are just not going to give in on this. They've never smoked it themselves but are convinced we must all be protected from it, that legalizing it will bring society to ruins as if it hasn't been easily available all along.

Mood-altering drugs, whether legal or not, are ALL BAD for individuals and society as a whole. Exceptions made for medical reasons only!

330 axegrinder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:14:13pm

I think the government is far too involved in what you can and can't do. I understand the regulation of drugs but it seems way too invasive to tell people what they can grow and do in their own house. I see parallels to the sodomy law some states still have but seldom enforce. If somebody is growing 10 lbs/month then obviously it's not for their own consumption and maybe they should be prosecuted. Otherwise I think people should mind their own business. Big brother and all that.

331 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:14:26pm

Maybe we could create a law where it would be legal for entertainers and dj's.

or in the opposite direction require golden flow testing for all people using public airwaves or having concerts in public facilities paid for by taxpayers.

332 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:14:35pm

re: #167 Mich-again

When I was a kid we could always get beer and MD from party stores that sold to minors on the down-low. That did not prevent abuse.

Of course it didn't prevent abuse. You couldn't drink it openly, in the presence of your parents or other responsible adults. So you drank until you became commode-hugging drunk, because it was the thing to do. BTDT, as a teenager, too.

333 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:14:45pm

re: #244 Salem

*sigh*

Excellent rebuttal!

334 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:14:47pm

re: #280 Salamantis

Really well stated. This is as much about individual liberty as anything else.

335 Dustyvet  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:15:05pm

re: #277 barere

Pipe down.

There's roach's all over the place...:)

336 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:15:11pm

re: #296 Timbre

You legalizers need to beware of toxic marijuana grown in contaminated soil. Cadmium poisoning is dreadful.

If marijuna were legal, inspectors could come to marijuana farms, test the soil, and make sure there weren't any cadmium in it, or unsafe pesticides, or whatever. The new pot tax would pay their salary.

337 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:15:16pm

re: #325 Gus 802

What do you mean? You don't think a milk crate chained to a wall is art? //

No. And I think a drip canvas inspired by a two year old peeing up a wall doesnt show me that the artist has anything to say about expressive content in my society.

338 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:15:30pm

re: #197 Killgore Trout

That's only because you can still do stuff when you're really stoned. Although it's not safe you can still drive a car, hold up a store, break into a house, etc. while really stoned. Severely drunk and you can't even walk much less commit a crime.

Still do stuff? I couldn't f@cking order a pizza.

339 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:15:37pm

re: #329 ggt

Mood-altering drugs, whether legal or not, are ALL BAD for individuals and society as a whole. Exceptions made for medical reasons only!

Sugar, but it's a slow killer if not used in moderation.

340 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:15:38pm

If anything America should be much more tolerant to Hemp (which is completely different than Marijuana).

Hemp can be very beneficial to the environment as a substitute for many things, including clothing and paper. Hemp oil is easy to produce.

341 Randall Gross  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:15:53pm

re: #328 zombie

Actually there are many paths to ersatz sense of accomplishment, should we outlaw World of Warcraft too?

342 Timbre  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:15:54pm

re: #313 Zimriel

That's a good point, and maybe if it was legalised they could fine the crap out of crooks who sell weed that is grown on poisoned land.

So maybe you should have directed your comment at the anti-legalisers.

Actually, I was directing it toward persons who share my interest in television medicine.

343 Kosh's Shadow  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:15:54pm

Anything to help us deal with four years of the 0bama administration.
/sarc

344 tokyobk  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:16:16pm

re: #328 zombie

But, don't people have the right to chose to be losers as long as they are not hurting other people directly (I understand, for example, users of tobacco raise all of our insurance).

345 wee fury  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:16:35pm

re: #328 zombie
Yes.

346 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:16:56pm

re: #314 NY Nana

A bit more dangerous than beer....see this.

Yeah! No one's ever got lung cancer from booze!

/ What?!?!

347 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:17:36pm

re: #305 SpaceJesus
So you've never run into anyone who was stoned and p-ssed off at the same time?
You need to get out more.

348 So?  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:17:59pm

Last year, my downstairs neighbor admitted to smoking pot for her pain. After 5 opeartions for colitis, she was on dilaudid 24/7 which wrecked her system in other ways. Now she smokes pot regularly and has her pain under control and also seems to laugh a lot. But she swears by it. So why not. Better than being a morphine derivative junkie. This woman is in her 40s by the way and has 2 grown up kids.

349 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:18:09pm

re: #309 lizardbennet

I don't think the problem is whether or not pot is dangerous.

Who's going to open a pot production or distribution plant when all that's going to happen is they will get sued by the first person to get injured while stoned or by a stoned person?

When was the last time you heard of an alcohol manufacturer or distributer being sued?
Couple bars couple years back, bout it.

350 M. Bensson-Levi  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:18:29pm

re: #280 Salamantis

Bravo. Well written.

351 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:18:42pm

re: #346 NukeAtomrod

Yeah! No one's ever got lung cancer from booze!

/ What?!?!

No, just head and neck cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, liver cancer...

352 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:18:52pm

re: #347 tradewind

So you've never run into anyone who was stoned and p-ssed off at the same time?
You need to get out more.

He's spent very little time outside his parents basement.

353 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:18:57pm

re: #314 NY Nana

re: #346 NukeAtomrod

Yeah! No one's ever got lung cancer from booze!

/ What?!?!

The negative effects of alcohol are much better understood and demonstrated, any negative effects of cannabis are more suspected at this point and not clearly demonstrated.

354 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:19:19pm

re: #351 Last Mohican

No, just head and neck cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, liver cancer...

wow .. you should be advertising for Budweiser with a line like that.

355 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:19:32pm

re: #186 jaunte

The problem with trying to tax a weed is that it grows anywhere. The law enforcement efforts that exist now would be dwarfed by the effort expended by tax authorities trying to keep track of all the growers of legal pot.

Well, the response to that is that most folks are lazy enough to let other produce their drug of choice for them. You can brew your own beer and wine (legally, in most places), and likewise legally grow your own tobacco. But it takes time and trouble to produce a product that is as acceptable as the stuff you can buy at the store.

356 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:19:32pm

re: #347 tradewind

So you've never run into anyone who was stoned and p-ssed off at the same time?
You need to get out more.

only pissed off because they ran out of weed

357 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:20:04pm

re: #329 ggt

Mood-altering drugs, whether legal or not, are ALL BAD for individuals and society as a whole. Exceptions made for medical reasons only!

Yeah, and guns are used to shoot people. They are bad for society and should be banned except to be used for shooting sick people.

See the problem?

358 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:20:06pm

C'mon, lighten up! Even the president smokes weed.

359 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:20:36pm

If they're not violating the rights of others, why should I care?

360 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:20:39pm

re: #328 zombie

Nessus, if you ever use [the tasp] on me again, I will kill you. - Speaker to Animals

361 Summer Seale  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:20:53pm

I think Penn's take is 100% correct.

I'm pretty anti-drug, but I don't think it should be illegal. It's totally ridiculous at this point and has come to be a glaring hypocrisy in society equaled to the hypocrisy of Prohibition.

There was a reason that Prohibition didn't work, and a big reason why we repealed that stupid law: it wasn't working. It enriched really bad people, created really bad crime, and turned decent people into "criminals".

Seriously, it's just time to take away that stupid law and be done with it. There aren't any consequences that would occur if we did it that we're not already dealing with, and the likelihood is that there would be far less bad consequences if we just took that step.

BTW, for the record, I have done drugs, but I don't anymore - at all. No government program took me off of them, no counseling, or psychotherapy or anything like that. I just realized it was a dumb way to waste my time. It was fun while it lasted but that was a few years ago. I'm clean by my own choice and, honestly, I wouldn't have gotten clean any other way.

362 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:21:14pm

re: #328 zombie

One of the things I do all the time is ponder the real reasons that people have for their opinions; often, I've concluded, it's not necessarily the reasons they think they have. I even do this analysis on myself, and on this topic, I came to a surprising conclusion.

Here is my actual fundamental reason for not wanting to legalize marijuana:

------------

Our brain is wired to experience pain when we do something "wrong" and pleasure when we do something "right." One of the most pleasurable sensations, for whatever bio-evolutionary reason, is what we call "a feeling of accomplishment." The satisfaction of completing a task, and completing it well.

Drugs (marijuana in particular) are essentially a shortcut to that sensation. No need to actually achieve anything or actually solve a problem or actually complete a task well -- just smoke a joint and you feel as if you have done so.

The end result is that the pot-smoker has no motivation to achieve anything in reality. They can get that good "reward" feeling by just lighting up.

But the consequence of this, viewed economically, is that society will lose these people as productive members. Druggies will not add to the communal good through their efforts, because they're too busy taking the shortcut to pleasure.

This is the reason why pot-heads so frequently do become "losers" -- because they short-circuited their ambition by cheating with a quick shot of insta-satisfaction.

It's not so much resentment on my part that people get to experience pleasure without having done anything to earn it (though to be completely honest, that aspect does play a role); but rather that widespread marijuana usage will inescapably lead to societal decline as more and more people enter into the "loser zone" and cease being productive members of society.


heaven forbid people ever do anything enjoyable that isn't a byproduct of work.

the puritans went extinct for a reason you know

363 fpxr  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:21:20pm

re: #358 Racer X

C'mon, lighten up! Even the president smokes weed.

...and he even inhales. How 'bout that!

364 NonNativeTexan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:21:23pm

The link to the article I quoted above.
[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]

365 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:21:33pm

re: #353 Bagua

re: #346 NukeAtomrod

The negative effects of alcohol are much better understood and demonstrated, any negative effects of cannabis are more suspected at this point and not clearly demonstrated.

Uh-oh, now this is starting to sound more like the discussions on digg.com. There are negative health effects of cannabis. The point is, maybe they're not serious enough to warrant outlawing the drug, especially when compared to those of legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.

366 Buster Bunny  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:21:37pm

re: #341 Thanos

Actually there are many paths to ersatz sense of accomplishment, should we outlaw World of Warcraft too?

Just the Draenai .. they just dont belong.

The other races are ok.

367 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:21:52pm

re: #236 leereyno

You need to come South. In my large city, it's a huge gangbanger thang... they're all stoned when they're not banging.
Lotta weed smoked in the 'hood here.

368 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:22:02pm

re: #333 zombie

Excellent rebuttal!

No rebuttal, just disappointment.

369 jaunte  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:22:29pm

re: #355 Alberta Oil Peon

It's possible; I'm just going from what I saw of the pot-growing culture in Austin in the 70's. It was so easy, anyone could do it. I just don't think it will be a reliable source of tax revenue.

370 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:22:40pm

re: #356 SpaceJesus

only pissed off because they ran out of weed

Is that why you're always so contrary around here?

371 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:22:45pm

re: #364 NonNativeTexan

The link to the article I quoted above.
[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]

The Telegraph, like most MSM rags these days, doesn't half publish some garbage.

372 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:23:03pm

re: #352 unrealizedviewpoint

/Copy that/

373 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:24:00pm

Imagine a nation where pot is legal.

I could finally sit down with Obama in the oval office and smoke him out, and explain to him why he's a good guy, and how his heart is in the right place, but that he's wrong about so many things. I would convince him to change his policies, and thus save America.

Legalizing weed is the only path to saving our republic.

374 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:24:13pm

re: #365 Last Mohican

Uh-oh, now this is starting to sound more like the discussions on digg.com. There are negative health effects of cannabis. The point is, maybe they're not serious enough to warrant outlawing the drug, especially when compared to those of legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.

Exactly. Whether pot has negative side effects is beside the point. Smoking and drinking are both bad for you AND legal. Whether pot is good or bad should not affect whether it is legal.

I likewise do not like the FDA pulling drugs of the market when it is discovered they have harmful side effects. Require labeling and effective disclosure, sure, but this nanny thing goes too far.

375 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:24:15pm

People... seriously. Before we think about legalizing pot, can we please legalize dishwashing detergent liquid that actually works in WA state?
LMAO at the reports, but if I lived there, I would be mad as hell.
And I'd be a lawbreaker.

376 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:24:23pm

I see we don't have our Lizard back up top. Has Charles said whether he will restore the logo or not?

377 So?  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:24:24pm

re: #328 zombie

One of the things I do all the time is ponder the real reasons that people have for their opinions; often, I've concluded, it's not necessarily the reasons they think they have. I even do this analysis on myself, and on this topic, I came to a surprising conclusion.

Here is my actual fundamental reason for not wanting to legalize marijuana:

------------

Our brain is wired to experience pain when we do something "wrong" and pleasure when we do something "right." One of the most pleasurable sensations, for whatever bio-evolutionary reason, is what we call "a feeling of accomplishment." The satisfaction of completing a task, and completing it well.

Drugs (marijuana in particular) are essentially a shortcut to that sensation. No need to actually achieve anything or actually solve a problem or actually complete a task well -- just smoke a joint and you feel as if you have done so.

The end result is that the pot-smoker has no motivation to achieve anything in reality. They can get that good "reward" feeling by just lighting up.

But the consequence of this, viewed economically, is that society will lose these people as productive members. Druggies will not add to the communal good through their efforts, because they're too busy taking the shortcut to pleasure.

This is the reason why pot-heads so frequently do become "losers" -- because they short-circuited their ambition by cheating with a quick shot of insta-satisfaction.

It's not so much resentment on my part that people get to experience pleasure without having done anything to earn it (though to be completely honest, that aspect does play a role); but rather that widespread marijuana usage will inescapably lead to societal decline as more and more people enter into the "loser zone" and cease being productive members of society.

Yeah, what about the creative element? Hendrix smoked dope all the time. If you speak to musicians or artists it opens up creative doors. I'm talking grass here, not cocaine or speed or heroin. Grass has this ability in many to make them super creative. I know, it did for me way back, and no I don't smoke anymore, but for other reasons. So don't generalize how people who smoke pot have no motivation. That's a load of bull crap. I know at least a half dozen musicians who have major label record deals, are very productive , creative and live wonderful fulfilling lives. And quite a few painters too.

378 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:24:38pm

re: #351 Last Mohican

No, just head and neck cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, liver cancer...

Thus my sarc tag. ;)

379 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:24:56pm

re: #362 SpaceJesus

heaven forbid people ever do anything enjoyable that isn't a byproduct of work.

the puritans went extinct for a reason you know

Everyone please leave Space Jesus alone. Just stand back and GAZE at the strawman he's busy building.

380 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:05pm

re: #266 Steve Rogers

"To all who claim the government must keep pot illegal so as to keep people from smoking it, I have but one question for you: Are you telling me that the only reason you aren't currently smoking pot is because the government says it is illegal? Nonsense! You don't smoke it for the same reason I don't smoke it: You don't want to! "

Have you ever been addicted to anything? After 12+ years, I still want it. I don't because I made a choice to live without it because I wanted a life. Wanting a job-which I couldnt' have if I was still doping, and a kid that isn't raised by a f@cked-up mother etc . . .are the reasons I don't partake anymore. It has nothing to do with NOT wanting it.

381 lizardbennet  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:14pm

re: #349 unrealizedviewpoint

You're right, I haven't. And maybe that would be the case with pot, too. I really don't know. I'm all for legalizing pot, by the way. I think everyone should be able to do for themselves and think for themselves when it comes to things like this. It just seems like a prime target for individuals who want to either avoid personal responsibility or exploit the court system or both. Like I said before, though, I think pot should be legal.

382 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:34pm

re: #328 zombie

You're assuming that legalization would create a larger marijuana user population. The drug abuser population in this country is already rather substantial. Legal marijuana might in the end just "replace" drugs already being "abused" by said population. Again, since this is mainly an addictive personality question I believe this would in fact be the case.

The largest drug abuse population in the USA currently are using illegally obtained legal drugs and pain killers: OxyContin, Percocet, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderall, and Vicoden. It's illegal however the problem is still rather substantial if not greater than the marijuana use.

383 barere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:34pm

re: #377 So?

Yeah, what about the creative element? Hendrix smoked dope all the time. If you speak to musicians or artists it opens up creative doors. I'm talking grass here, not cocaine or speed or heroin. Grass has this ability in many to make them super creative. I know, it did for me way back, and no I don't smoke anymore, but for other reasons. So don't generalize how people who smoke pot have no motivation. That's a load of bull crap. I know at least a half dozen musicians who have major label record deals, are very productive , creative and live wonderful fulfilling lives. And quite a few painters too.

Exactly. Personally, I think that it was OK for Coleridge to have composed Kublai Kahn under the influence of opium.

384 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:37pm

This article says decriminalization has not increased usage contrary to popular assumptions.

385 axegrinder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:40pm

re: #341 Thanos

Actually there are many paths to ersatz sense of accomplishment, should we outlaw World of Warcraft too?

Ah, there are so many that think we should. And tv. And tobacco use. I've heard it refereed to as the pleasure police syndrome.

386 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:25:43pm

re: #328 zombie

One of the things I do all the time is ponder the real reasons that people have for their opinions; often, I've concluded, it's not necessarily the reasons they think they have. I even do this analysis on myself, and on this topic, I came to a surprising conclusion.

Here is my actual fundamental reason for not wanting to legalize marijuana:

------------

Our brain is wired to experience pain when we do something "wrong" and pleasure when we do something "right." One of the most pleasurable sensations, for whatever bio-evolutionary reason, is what we call "a feeling of accomplishment." The satisfaction of completing a task, and completing it well.

Drugs (marijuana in particular) are essentially a shortcut to that sensation. No need to actually achieve anything or actually solve a problem or actually complete a task well -- just smoke a joint and you feel as if you have done so.

The end result is that the pot-smoker has no motivation to achieve anything in reality. They can get that good "reward" feeling by just lighting up.

But the consequence of this, viewed economically, is that society will lose these people as productive members. Druggies will not add to the communal good through their efforts, because they're too busy taking the shortcut to pleasure.

This is the reason why pot-heads so frequently do become "losers" -- because they short-circuited their ambition by cheating with a quick shot of insta-satisfaction.

It's not so much resentment on my part that people get to experience pleasure without having done anything to earn it (though to be completely honest, that aspect does play a role); but rather that widespread marijuana usage will inescapably lead to societal decline as more and more people enter into the "loser zone" and cease being productive members of society.

You could make a similar argument against any risky non-productive activity which happens to be enjoyable.
Your analysis is somewhat judgmental and puritanical.
And contrary to a literalist interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
In short, you are correct.

387 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:26:08pm

re: #328 zombie

But zombie, overall, isn't the idea to be happy?
You want folks to be happy don't you? Why care how they get their feeling of accomplishment? Why care how or what they do, or don't?
/channeling someone

388 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:26:11pm

re: #374 BryanS

Well.... actually, moderate... very moderate.. alcohol use is positively correlated with cardiovascular health and longevity as long as there are no contraindications to using it.
So it's not automatically ' bad for you '.

389 M. Bensson-Levi  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:26:20pm

re: #303 jaunte

...if everyone with a grow-light is considered a potential tax-evader, the enforcement effort is vastly enlarged.

One can laugh at Death, cops, and the DEA, but no one can mess with the tax man, and get away with it...except maybe Democrats.

390 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:26:31pm

re: #328 zombie

One of the things I do all the time is ponder the real reasons that people have for their opinions; often, I've concluded, it's not necessarily the reasons they think they have. I even do this analysis on myself, and on this topic, I came to a surprising conclusion.

Here is my actual fundamental reason for not wanting to legalize marijuana:
...
But the consequence of this, viewed economically, is that society will lose these people as productive members. Druggies will not add to the communal good through their efforts, because they're too busy taking the shortcut to pleasure..

The problem with that, is the same argument can be leveled against someone who spent 20 hours finally mastering Resident Evil 4. Sure it was a wasted 20 hours. But it's not up to us to tell this guy he ought to be Working For The Greater Good Of Society.

... sounds kinda f-word, actually...

391 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:27:02pm

re: #328 zombie

I learned to take drugs in the military. From the fire station crew and the law enforcement guys. I hear it's changed now. This was vietnam era times. I did it to be more social. Everyone was doing it even though the penalties were severe.

I went on to college and took an Economics 401 exam totally stoned. It was essay. I thought I was brilliant I got a F. I bet the professor thought that student had to be stoned. But in college, alcohol parties were the gateway mechanism.

One day I just woke up and realized I was killing myself. And I just stopped.

If I look back, I would have preferred not to have taken any drugs ever. But I consider pot fairly benign in comparison to alcohol or cigarettes.

IMO: legalize pot, deal with a few hard drug dealers a la Singapore. Or just send them there. Singapore tells you up front they will kill you if you deal drugs. The word will get around and society will balance out.

392 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:27:30pm

re: #202 jordash1212

My only problem with legalizing is what guarantees do you have of successfully taxing it, and how can you determine who is over the limit if they are driving?

I'm sure that a reliable blood or urine test could be developed. Drivers that "come to the attention" of police officers because of how they are driving should be, and are, stopped and ticketed. There are a variety of field sobriety tests, and I'm fairly confident that one could be developed that would disclose an individual stoned on pot.

393 funky chicken  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:27:36pm

Shrug. Who cares? I smoked it in college and I'm a productive citizen today. I had a few friends who used pot every evening, and they still functioned in hard science or upper level undergrad math classes just fine. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's probably no worse for you than going to a bar and having a few drinks and cigarettes, which I also used to do.

Pot is less incapacitating than alcohol, but that could be dangerous if people think they are capable of driving high.

And yeah, they could still keep the testing regimens for jobs like physicians, military, and law enforcement if it's legalized, correct? It's legal to test for prescription drugs, so I would think so.

394 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:27:40pm

Prohibition didn't work before and it's not working now.

What I see here from some is a prejudiced view of pot smokers. Not all of them are lazy, not all of them are stupid. Some of them are quite intelligent, and productive members of society. They pay their taxes and leave other people alone to live their lives as they see fit. But they're not being granted that same courtesy. That's unfortunate.

395 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:00pm

re: #377 So?

Sorry, but what a cop-out.
A musician who plays or composes brilliantly while stoned will play or compose even more brilliantly sober, all other things equal.
Ask them, they'll tell you.

396 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:02pm

re: #341 Thanos

Actually there are many paths to ersatz sense of accomplishment, should we outlaw World of Warcraft too?

In my opinion -- video games are in fact a very similar waste of time. One of the reasons why I don't play them.

People sometimes ask me how I get so much done. I'll tell you how: I don't waste my time. Every second is precious. I want to use it to its fullest. I don't want to squander it away on some fantasy world, whether it be a fraudulent "high" or an artificial game.

397 NonNativeTexan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:14pm

re: #384 Claire

This article says decriminalization has not increased usage contrary to popular assumptions.

Com'on Claire,
everyone in San Fran and Amsterdam were already smoking.
It could not go any higher. /

398 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:14pm

Congress should definitely consider decriminalizing possession of marijuana... We should concentrate on prosecuting the rapists and burglars who are a menace to society.
- Dan Quayle U.S. Representative and Vice president (March 1977)


Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
- Ronald Reagan, U.S. President (1980-1988)

399 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:17pm

The figures on this chart may be a few years old, but I think it gets the point across rather well regarding marijuana.

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

Zero, lol.

400 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:18pm

re: #388 tradewind

Well.... actually, moderate... very moderate.. alcohol use is positively correlated with cardiovascular health and longevity as long as there are no contraindications to using it.
So it's not automatically ' bad for you '.

I think if we looked in the Bible, we would find that *strong drink* is a part of rejoicing.

401 jaunte  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:19pm

re: #389 M. Bensson-Levi

One can laugh at Death, cops, and the DEA, but no one can mess with the tax man, and get away with it...except maybe Democrats.

Imagine the Democratic block captains tasked by the IRS with tax-farming the home growers. Yikes.

402 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:28:52pm

re: #399 Mad Mullah

The figures on this chart may be a few years old, but I think it gets the point across rather well regarding marijuana.

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

Zero, lol.

We should ban Microbial Agents. //

403 Bill K.  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:06pm

Legalize all drugs, not just marijuana. Anyone that uses "recreational" deserves to live with the consequences including death. So what if tens of thousands of stupid idiots overdose and die? The world is better off without them.

I know the hand wringers will sob that this is too many people to die and that a virtual police state could have prevented these deaths. Is is only justice that the drug users cease to exist. Everyone knows that hard drugs are dangerous and that using them is tantamount to committing suicide. Why waste tears over them?

404 axegrinder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:20pm

re: #362 SpaceJesus

heaven forbid people ever do anything enjoyable that isn't a byproduct of work.

the puritans went extinct for a reason you know

I think you might be shocked by how many people can trace their ancestry to the Puritans. The life style may be harsh but it is conductive to survival.

405 Sheepdogess  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:28pm

God help parents if the US legalizes it. Adolescents will try just about anything.

406 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:35pm

re: #379 Dark_Falcon

Everyone please leave Space Jesus alone. Just stand back and GAZE at the strawman he's busy building.

uh, false?

why do you have an assault rifle in your avatar by the way? are you saying that you are a violent person, or feel inadequate in your masculinity?

I have the cure for you.

407 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:40pm

re: #392 Alberta Oil Peon

Field test?
What.... looking for really red eyes and empty Doritos bags on the front seat?

408 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:49pm

re: #400 Wishing

I think if we looked in the Bible, we would find that *strong drink* is a part of rejoicing.

"Yayin yisamach levav enosh" -- "Wine gladdens the heart of man"

Scripture doesn't say anything about weed, or meth, or cocaine.

409 lizardbennet  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:29:58pm

re: #403 Bill K.
I completely agree with you. 100%

410 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:30:05pm

Wow- The US incarcerates 500,000 people for drug charges, more than all of Europe (with a higher population) does for all offenses.

1.5 million are arrested every year for drugs, 40% of them for Marijuana-

411 Macker  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:30:12pm

Decriminalize, but do not legalize.

412 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:30:31pm

re: #399 Mad Mullah

The figures on this chart may be a few years old, but I think it gets the point across rather well regarding marijuana.

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

Zero, lol.

Do those figures include indirect causation, such a car crash while high or drunk?

413 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:30:33pm

re: #359 Sharmuta

If they're not violating the rights of others, why should I care?

Your right to swing your fist stops at my noze. Now blow that dirtweed smoke in the other direction will ya?

414 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:30:54pm

re: #405 Sheepdogess

God help parents if the US legalizes it. Adolescents will try just about anything.

I think they already do try cannabis, in rather large numbers.

415 realwest  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:31:05pm

re: #270 Gus 802 Hey mon!
I've smoked weed (not for quite a while - long enough for the statute of limitations to run!) and I've read A LOT of arguments for and against legalizing pot, decriminalizing pot and keeping it illegal.
First of all, I think Booze is a MUCH worse "drug" than marijuana. We tried outlawing booze and look what that got us: a richer and wealthier criminal class, and a LARGE group of Americans who refused to obey the law. I think that the same result has occurred with pot. When Nelson Rockefeller was Governor of NYS, he made pot, coke, heroin and speed all the same for purposes of criminal punishment. Indeed there were cases where someone would get busted for driving with a broken tail out, the cop would smell the weed, found one joint on the guy (or in the guy or girl's car) and they were sentenced to TWENTY YEARS IN JAIL- no lie. NYS finally came to it's senses and iirc, now the penalty for possession of One Ounce of pot (about 20 joints depending on how thick you like your spliffs) is: nada. It's not a criminal felony or misdemeanor, it's a violation, the penalty is a $100 fine, the law deeming possession of one ounce or less to be for personal use. More than an ounce and you might get convicted of a Class B or C misdemeanor, repeat offenders will go to jail. It's has freed up cops, DA's and Legal Aid from spending SOO many resources finding pot smokers, trying them and probably convicting them, and then paying their "room and board".
As to whether or not it's a "gateway" drug, I'm personally skeptical - pot makes you happy, hungry and sometimes feeling sexy no matter how often you smoke it. Not so for cocaine, heroin, meth-amphetamine, Angel Dust, LSD (does anyone still do LSD?!) or other so called hard drugs. And those drugs are in fact physically and psychologically addicting. If you like pot, the odds are, IMO you will not love the hard drugs - just totally different "highs".
But think of this: if the government grew it and sold it, surer than hell, some smart ass folks would still grow or import their own, more powerful pot and still sell that on the black market.
But the government doesn't NEED to tax it; just grow it and sell it (in varying strengths) at whatever pot sells for now - no taxing of it - and the government would make a FORTUNE. And more importantly, as with the end of prohibition, make fewer and fewer Americans criminals because, as prohibition showed, some folks just like to get high - not violent, not so needy for the booze that they'd kill you for it or mug you and take your money for it for which, should they do it THAT'S what they should be arrested and tried for.
I am very much in favor of the government following NYS's example to what is a logical conclussion: make pot legal and growing and selling pot. Take the profit away from the crooks and free up much needed law enforcement resources for much more important matter - and not so coincidentally, making a very tidy profit for Uncle Sam.

416 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:31:08pm

re: #388 tradewind

Well.... actually, moderate... very moderate.. alcohol use is positively correlated with cardiovascular health and longevity as long as there are no contraindications to using it.
So it's not automatically ' bad for you '.

And generally depending on what kind of alcohol--there are still questions about whether it's alcohol on its own or other chemicals in the drink that gives the benefit.

That said, it still does not matter whether pot is good or bad for you. The amount of resources spent enforcing a law so widely violated could be spent on other things to better affect. Especially when the breaking of that law has a low impact on society except for the effects on the end user.

417 funky chicken  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:31:27pm

re: #328 zombie

Huh. Pot never gave me a sense of accomplishment. It made parties fun, and made me hungry and sleepy later.

I had a friend in college who didn't like it because he said the next day he had "the lazy dum-dums," but not everybody who smoked it got that way.

418 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:31:40pm

re: #410 Claire

Wow- The US incarcerates 500,000 people for drug charges, more than all of Europe (with a higher population) does for all offenses.

1.5 million are arrested every year for drugs, 40% of them for Marijuana-

And that right there is probably the strongest argument for decriminalization.

419 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:31:44pm

re: #410 Claire

Wow- The US incarcerates 500,000 people for drug charges, more than all of Europe (with a higher population) does for all offenses.

1.5 million are arrested every year for drugs, 40% of them for Marijuana-

Sure are a lot of stupid effin' people huh?
Why do they get caught?

420 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:31:55pm

re: #339 hazzyday

Sugar, but it's a slow killer if not used in moderation.

I've read articles that state sugar is the first addiction.

421 Gella  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:32:02pm

re: #405 Sheepdogess

God help parents if the US legalizes it. Adolescents will try just about anything.

they will try it even more if its banned

422 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:32:09pm

re: #396 zombie

In my opinion -- video games are in fact a very similar waste of time. One of the reasons why I don't play them.

People sometimes ask me how I get so much done. I'll tell you how: I don't waste my time. Every second is precious. I want to use it to its fullest. I don't want to squander it away on some fantasy world, whether it be a fraudulent "high" or an artificial game.

But that is your choice, and while I respect it, I feel others have the right to make whatever choice they want to make about how they spend their time- even if I agree they're wasting it. That's what freedom means. Some will use their freedom to be sober, some to be mostly sober with occasional inebriation, other will be addicts to whatever. That's freedom.

423 mikalm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:32:28pm

re: #400 Wishing

I think if we looked in the Bible, we would find that *strong drink* is a part of rejoicing.

And I seem to recall a story about Jesus Christ providing something at a wedding in Cana....

424 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:32:38pm

It really puzzles me to see marijuana connected with narcotics dope and all of that stuff. It is a thousand times better than whiskey. It is an assistant and a friend.
- Louis Armstrong

425 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:32:45pm

re: #384 Claire

This article says decriminalization has not increased usage contrary to popular assumptions.

I'm not buying it. I haven't read the whole paper, but I simply don't see how an observational study of two different cities in different countries with different cultures can possibly hope to show that decriminalization doesn't increase usage. There have got to be people who would like to use marijuana, but are dissuaded from doing so by its illegality. And legalizing it completely would certainly increase use even more, because there are people who would like to smoke marijuana, but simply don't know where to buy it.

These are not arguments for why marijuana should remain illegal, I'm just finding fault with this study's methodology.

426 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:33:05pm

re: #404 axegrinder

I think you might be shocked by how many people can trace their ancestry to the Puritans. The life style may be harsh but it is conductive to survival.


Just like Wahabism

427 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:33:10pm

"Marijuana is taken by '.....musicians. And I'm not speaking about good musicians, but the jazz type...
- Harry J. Anslinger, Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1948

428 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:33:18pm

re: #399 Mad Mullah

The figures on this chart may be a few years old, but I think it gets the point across rather well regarding marijuana.

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

Zero, lol.

Utter bullshit.

429 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:33:35pm

re: #402 Gus 802

(I think that chart had to have been copied/pasted from High Times.)

430 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:33:40pm

re: #357 Salem

Yeah, and guns are used to shoot people. They are bad for society and should be banned except to be used for shooting sick people.

See the problem?

NO.

431 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:34:33pm

Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!
- George Washington in a note to his gardener at Mount Vernon (1794), The Writings of George Washington, Volume 33, page 270 (Library of Congress)

Washington also recorded his concern that the male and female plants be seperated:
May 12-13 1765: Sowed Hemp at Muddy hole by Swamp.
August 7, 1765: —began to seperate (sic) the Male from the Female Hemp at Do —rather too late.

Some assert his interest in separating the male and female plants is an indication that he may have used Indian hemp medicinally to treat his chronic tooth aches. Others note that fiber of the male and female hemp plants have a different optimum harvest times.

432 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:34:48pm

re: #406 SpaceJesus

uh, false?

why do you have an assault rifle in your avatar by the way? are you saying that you are a violent person, or feel inadequate in your masculinity?

I have the cure for you.

I just think it looks cool. But I would in fact find a rifle far more cool than smoking anything. I don't want that sort of crap in my lungs, period. I also find any use of intoxicants personally ill-advised. I need to keep my wits about me. Why I feel I must do that is not something I would explain in public.

433 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:35:25pm

The biggest high I get is from playing with my grandbabies.

The second biggest high is from logging on to my Zionist Mall account and see how much stuff people are buying. That makes me feel good, and the more stuff people buy, the bigger will be my Zionist check. :)

434 So?  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:35:36pm

re: #395 tradewind

Sorry, but what a cop-out.
A musician who plays or composes brilliantly while stoned will play or compose even more brilliantly sober, all other things equal.
Ask them, they'll tell you.

Ask them!
I have. I know. Another generalization on your part. Some artists might. Others might not. Expand your mind and float downstream...
We are all not built the same way. All the evolutionary threads should have proved that to you by now. My brain, is nothing like yours. It doesn't fire the same way, it doesn't react the same way, it doesn't interpret the same way. Yet here you make generaizations about musicians. Gimme a break.

435 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:35:51pm

re: #399 Mad Mullah

The figures on this chart may be a few years old, but I think it gets the point across rather well regarding marijuana.

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

Zero, lol.

What no linky? Your comment reads more like spam.

436 funky chicken  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:35:52pm

re: #197 Killgore Trout

That's only because you can still do stuff when you're really stoned. Although it's not safe you can still drive a car, hold up a store, break into a house, etc. while really stoned. Severely drunk and you can't even walk much less commit a crime.

Oh, thousands of victims of shit-faced drunk drivers would beg to differ. And hard core alcoholics cost the health system millions. One reason my mom quit donating blood was that she saw all the alcoholics come in for transfusions over and over again because of the damage alcohol does to the stomach (I think it's the stomach). They would come in vomiting blood, get stabilized and transfused, and be back for the same treatment the next week.

All on the taxpayer/hospital's dime. She worked as an RN in several different hospitals and got really disgusted.

437 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:36:14pm

When I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale.
- Bill Clinton, U.S. President (1993-2001)


I never understood that line. The point was to inhale. That was the point.
- Barack Obama, When asked, "Unlike other presidents, did you inhale?"

438 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:36:21pm

re: #362 SpaceJesus

heaven forbid people ever do anything enjoyable that isn't a byproduct of work.

the puritans went extinct for a reason you know

Have you ever known the psychological high that comes with a job well done?

439 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:37:11pm

"Our Dumb Century" featured a news article toward the end: "Drugs Win Drug War".

The President replaced his drug czar with the editor of High Times. On his way out, the previous czar admitted his mistake and then suggested: "I suggest we all get really, really baked."

440 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:37:16pm

re: #435 unrealizedviewpoint

What no linky? Your comment reads more like spam.

That's just the sort of thing that used to pollute all the digg.com discussions about marijuana. I'm beginning to think I need to take back my compliment about how much more rationally we're discussing the subject here.

441 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:37:16pm

re: #434 So?

My brain, is nothing like yours


You got that one right.

442 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:37:26pm

re: #438 ggt

Have you ever known the psychological high that comes with a job well done?

every time I come on this blog and show people the error of their ways

443 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:37:27pm

The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.
- Carl Sagan

444 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:37:37pm

re: #426 SpaceJesus

Just like Wahabism

And now SpaceJesus compares some of our Founders to the Saudi death cult. Lovely.

GAZE

445 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:38:11pm

re: #442 SpaceJesus

every time I come on this blog and show people the error of their ways

I guess that would be a "no."

446 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:38:21pm

re: #442 SpaceJesus

(I knew it).

447 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:38:46pm

re: #438 ggt

Have you ever known the psychological high that comes with a job well done?

He's pretty good at bogarting threads.

448 KronoGhazi  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:39:02pm

So... any meltdowns over weed?

449 AmeriDan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:39:15pm

re: #436 funky chicken

alcohol does to the stomach (I think it's the stomach).

From my experience, the liver is the first to go.

/OK now though

450 realwest  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:39:23pm

re: #328 zombie
I'm sorry to have to disagree with you zombie, but I don't think there's a whole lot of evidence that all folks who smoke pot are not productive members of society. Indeed, most of the Pot heads I knew were in fact "hard chargers" at work and - like me - came home from a 10 hour day and instead of relaxing with a martini, smoked a joint (or in my case half a joint). I'd still get up the next day and go put in another productive 10 hour or so day. On weekends (when I wasn't working) I might smoke a joint at a friends house or party. And frequently shared that joint with other lawyers, bankers, folks who worked hard at running NYC's delicatessans, and other businesses. Those few I knew who did coke did in fact become unproductive and fairly quickly after they started "using" it too.
It may be that out in Bzerkely you have a whole bunch of folks who do nothing but smoke pot all day, but that was NEVER my experience in NYC.

451 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:39:23pm

re: #448 BigPapa

Yes, actually.

452 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:39:31pm

re: #344 tokyobk

But, don't people have the right to chose to be losers as long as they are not hurting other people directly (I understand, for example, users of tobacco raise all of our insurance).

But drug-users are hurting people -- indirectly, at least, by not adding to society and thereby becoming burdens on society.

Look at it this way. Say you were on a raft, marooned on the high seas. There are three other guys on the raft with you. All four of you realize that, in order to survive, you will all have to do your damnedest to keep the raft afloat, rig up a fishing line to get food, develop a way to catch rainwater, etc., etc.

But only three of you strive to survive in this way. The fourth guy pulls out his stash and announces he's going to get high and goof off, and to tell him when the fish is cooked, 'cause he's gonna have the munchies.

Miraculously, without his help, you survive a month at sea, feeding him and giving him cups of rainwater while he experienced his inner pleasure.

Then you spot land. You come ashore on a desert island, and you realize once again that survival will be difficult. You will have to build shelter, fend off the predators, and again try to get food and water and do everything necessary to stay alive.

And once again the fourth guy takes out his stash and gets high, and asks you to inform him when you've built his shelter.

The only work he ever does is to plant his remaining pot seeds to grow some new buds. With the water you collected.

And so it goes, for years and decades and generations.

The potheads of this world skate along on the hard work of the rest of us, and then muse that they "aren't hurting anybody."

Well, I say that planet earth is that life raft. And us non-drug users are the three guys trying to keep us from sinking.

How can anyone possibly justify their behavior if they absolve themselves from the responsibility of saving mankind?

453 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:39:38pm

re: #405 Sheepdogess

God help parents if the US legalizes it. Adolescents will try just about anything.

You can get it in Junior High easy. The best way to immunize your kids against it is have a good relationship with them and the correct rules of growing up.

454 jaunte  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:39:38pm

re: #448 BigPapa

Everyone's out making grilled cheese sandwiches.

455 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:39:38pm

re: #396 zombie

In my opinion -- video games are in fact a very similar waste of time. One of the reasons why I don't play them.

People sometimes ask me how I get so much done. I'll tell you how: I don't waste my time. Every second is precious. I want to use it to its fullest. I don't want to squander it away on some fantasy world, whether it be a fraudulent "high" or an artificial game.

You could say this about all forms of entertainment. While, I think both pot and World of Warcraft are best avoided, this concept seems overly harsh.

456 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:39:49pm

re: #448 BigPapa

So... any meltdowns over weed?

With weed, you just get a gradual warming trend.

457 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:39:54pm

re: #442 SpaceJesus

every time I come on this blog and show people the error of their ways

Then you must never feel satisfaction. Considering that all you do is smart off and get downdinged.

458 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:39:55pm

re: #415 realwest

I've smoked before and barely touch the stuff. It's easy to control the desire for it and from personal experience far easier to handle than alcohol. The DEA rating of marijuana is antiquated and not based on real science and instead on and old standard from the 1920s.

It's interesting to not that the same people that argue against legalizing marijuana use a "social impact" model as the basis of their argument when they oppose social impact models for their own habits and hobbies. Cause and effect isn't usually something that society follows according to that model as has been argued by those on the side of liberty and in this matter I don't think we should abide by social models based on anecdotal evidence.

Pot is illegal yet anyone can get it with little or no effort. Get caught dealing and you're thrust into a system that is far more damaging than marijuana use itself. The argument that it is a gateway drug is not only a cliche but a falsehood since it is only a gateway into a culture because you have to go to a drug dealer to buy it. It's no more a gateway drug than drinking is a gateway to smoking cigarettes.

459 M. Bensson-Levi  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:40:00pm

re: #401 jaunte

Imagine the Democratic block captains tasked by the IRS with tax-farming the home growers. Yikes.

A level of corruption heretofore unimaginable...still unimaginable! Still, everyone would make out.

460 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:40:03pm

re: #412 Dark_Falcon

Do those figures include indirect causation, such a car crash while high or drunk?

I am not sure, but one thing I do notice is that certain people who are against marijuana and certain media often report a story like this:

John Doe of Alabama killed seven people in a shooting spree last night. Traces of cocaine, alcohol, meth and marijuana were found to be in his system.

Marijuana is as likely a contributing factor as milk would be in my opinion.

461 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:40:03pm

re: #448 BigPapa

So... any meltdowns over weed?

Too high to get upset.

462 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:40:19pm

re: #448 BigPapa
Just some token opposition.

463 KronoGhazi  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:40:25pm

re: #451 Sharmuta

Wow. A legalized pot meltdown. That's funny.

464 So?  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:40:31pm

re: #443 Racer X

The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.
- Carl Sagan

Tradewind, I think you need to read the above.

465 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:40:50pm

re: #395 tradewind

Sorry, but what a cop-out.
A musician who plays or composes brilliantly while stoned will play or compose even more brilliantly sober, all other things equal.
Ask them, they'll tell you.

I'm thinking of how much better their music seemed after so many of the Rocker's got clean and sober.

466 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:40:52pm

re: #444 Dark_Falcon

And now SpaceJesus compares some of our Founders to the Saudi death cult. Lovely.

GAZE

SpaceJesus gets the perma-GAZE. He's the lizard Medusa.

467 Simply Me  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:41:28pm

I am against de-criminalization for two reasons.
1) I don't want my daughter to start smoking pot and I think the legal issues are a deterrent for her.
2) I don't want to feel social pressure to smoke pot. I am concerned that it will be at parties if it it is de-criminalized and that would ruin the parties for me.

And my question is, what about second hand smoke? We know this is an issue with tobacco. Wouldn't there be people having impaired function from exposure to second hand marijuana smoke?

468 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:41:31pm

re: #452 zombie

So then we should make alcohol illegal because users of it are less productive? I think the impacts on society can be dealt with through taxes.

469 Kot Begemot  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:41:33pm

re: #328 zombie

Agreed in principle, but shouldn't alcohol be illegal as well by your logic? I don't think we'll ever be able to do away with "deadbeats" and "losers" through prohibitive legislation. If anything, legislation should be used to stimulate and encourage achievement. I also wonder if widespread dependence on legal drugs is a cause of societal decay, or merely a symptom.

470 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:41:44pm

re: #435 unrealizedviewpoint

What no linky? Your comment reads more like spam.

I am not affiliated with this site, but this is where I found it, and there are footnotes for each figure given.

[Link: www.drugwarfacts.org...]

471 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:41:55pm

re: #452 zombie

That same argument can be applied to alcohol.

472 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:42:00pm

re: #452 zombie

Every pot smoker I know contributes to this society. They work, they pay taxes, they spend money, they do all the things regular people do except they also smoke pot.

473 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:42:12pm

Smoking weed makes you paranoid. You do not want to drive your car. You do not want to leave your house. Just stay home and play video games.

I would prefer gang bangers have access to inexpensive weed, instead of having to burglarize my house to pay $300 a bag (which will last about a week).

Next comes the PROFIT that gang bangers earn on selling illegal weed. Take the profit out and there will be less crime.

474 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:42:19pm

re: #452 zombie

But drug-users are hurting people -- indirectly, at least, by not adding to society and thereby becoming burdens on society.

Look at it this way. Say you were on a raft, marooned on the high seas. There are three other guys on the raft with you. All four of you realize that, in order to survive, you will all have to do your damnedest to keep the raft afloat, rig up a fishing line to get food, develop a way to catch rainwater, etc., etc.

But only three of you strive to survive in this way. The fourth guy pulls out his stash and announces he's going to get high and goof off, and to tell him when the fish is cooked, 'cause he's gonna have the munchies.

Miraculously, without his help, you survive a month at sea, feeding him and giving him cups of rainwater while he experienced his inner pleasure.

Then you spot land. You come ashore on a desert island, and you realize once again that survival will be difficult. You will have to build shelter, fend off the predators, and again try to get food and water and do everything necessary to stay alive.

And once again the fourth guy takes out his stash and gets high, and asks you to inform him when you've built his shelter.

The only work he ever does is to plant his remaining pot seeds to grow some new buds. With the water you collected.

And so it goes, for years and decades and generations.

The potheads of this world skate along on the hard work of the rest of us, and then muse that they "aren't hurting anybody."

Well, I say that planet earth is that life raft. And us non-drug users are the three guys trying to keep us from sinking.

How can anyone possibly justify their behavior if they absolve themselves from the responsibility of saving mankind?

Brilliant! Well reasoned, and convincing. I agree entirely.

475 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:42:22pm

re: #428 Last Mohican

Utter bullshit.

No it's true. In the drug prevention books in my CO's office Marijuana was listed as a non- fatal drug. You couldn't die from taking it and OD'ing on it. Lot's of others you could die from overdosing.

476 sngnsgt  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:42:38pm

Go ahead and legalize it, democrats are always looking for something new to tax. I'm a smoker, democrats are really screwing me there. How else do you think Barry O's going to pay for his "plans"? (Oh, and BTW Barry's a smoker too.)

477 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:42:54pm

No one yet, on this thread has mentioned that the levels of THC in currently grown pot, are HUGELY different than the pot of 20-30 years ago. Kinda like Beer versus Gin, concentration wise.

478 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:43:00pm

re: #452 zombie

But drug-users are hurting people -- indirectly, at least, by not adding to society and thereby becoming burdens on society.

Look at it this way. Say you were on a raft, marooned on the high seas. There are three other guys on the raft with you. All four of you realize that, in order to survive, you will all have to do your damnedest to keep the raft afloat, rig up a fishing line to get food, develop a way to catch rainwater, etc., etc.

I do not like this train of argument.

479 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:43:17pm

re: #399 Mad Mullah

The figures on this chart may be a few years old, but I think it gets the point across rather well regarding marijuana.

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

Zero, lol.

You see? Marijuana is for underachievers!

480 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:43:18pm

re: #419 unrealizedviewpoint

Sure are a lot of stupid effin' people huh?
Why do they get caught?

They are too stoned to care.

481 KronoGhazi  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:43:24pm

I'm gonna go take some bong hits, play Halo, eat some ice cream, then surf for porn.

BBL

(actually, I have to make dinner for Mrs Papa. But that would be my MO if I was 22 again)

482 So?  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:43:27pm

re: #465 ggt

I'm thinking of how much better their music seemed after so many of the Rocker's got clean and sober.

Yeah, well Clapton's music has sucked the biscuit for years. His best playing was done with Cream, Blind Faith and Derek & The Dominoes when he was STONED.

483 M. Bensson-Levi  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:43:33pm

re: #408 Alouette

"Yayin yisamach levav enosh" -- "Wine gladdens the heart of man"

Scripture doesn't say anything about weed, or meth, or cocaine.

Depends how one interprets "All the green herbs of the Earth shall be yours."

484 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:43:42pm

"There were three of them in there. One of them was a male and the other two.... the other two were female. God only knows what they were upto. And futherther more Susan, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that all three of them were smoking marijuana cigarettes". REEFER.

485 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:43:47pm

re: #464 So?

No thanks, I think I'll leave you and Carl in the Fourth Dimension while I stay here on earth......

486 Salamantis  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:44:01pm

re: #467 Simply Me

I am against de-criminalization for two reasons.
1) I don't want my daughter to start smoking pot and I think the legal issues are a deterrent for her.
2) I don't want to feel social pressure to smoke pot. I am concerned that it will be at parties if it it is de-criminalized and that would ruin the parties for me.

And my question is, what about second hand smoke? We know this is an issue with tobacco. Wouldn't there be people having impaired function from exposure to second hand marijuana smoke?

The mythical contact high makes its first appearance on the thread.

People just tend to laugh more when the folks around them are also laughing.

487 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:44:20pm

re: #442 SpaceJesus

every time I come on this blog and show people the error of their my ways

Edited for accuracy.

488 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:44:22pm

re: #281 BLBfootballs

...and I start to think that it's nowhere near as simple as I'd like to be. One thing I'm sure of: jailing people for simple possession is just insane.

The back story to what Pegcity posted: Surrey is a bedroom city to Vancouver, B.C. Heavy on Asian ethnic gangs, both east Asian, and south Asian. Pot-growing is a major industry in B.C. Some sources say it's the third-largest industry in dollar volume. Because it's illegal, good data is scarce. But "B.C. bud" is sought-after all across North America. Because pot is illegal, criminal gangs are involved in its cultivation and distribution, so it should come as no surprise that a pot grower might swap a few bricks for a Tec-9. One illegal product swapped for another; the good old barter system.

489 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:44:29pm

re: #444 Dark_Falcon

And now SpaceJesus compares some of our Founders to the Saudi death cult. Lovely.

GAZE

erroneous

490 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:44:32pm

re: #467 Simply Me

I am against de-criminalization for two reasons.
1) I don't want my daughter to start smoking pot and I think the legal issues are a deterrent for her.
2) I don't want to feel social pressure to smoke pot. I am concerned that it will be at parties if it it is de-criminalized and that would ruin the parties for me.

And my question is, what about second hand smoke? We know this is an issue with tobacco. Wouldn't there be people having impaired function from exposure to second hand marijuana smoke?

Replace the word "pot" with the word "alcohol" or "tobacco". Same arguments hold, but the rights of the individual are given priority over your concerns for those two and not pot.

491 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:44:32pm

re: #452 zombie

How can anyone possibly justify their behavior if they absolve themselves from the responsibility of saving mankind?

WHOA! Where is it my responsibility to save mankind?!

492 mikalm  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:44:33pm

This is all quite fascinating, but I'm off to relax with a glass (100% legal) Red Stripe beer. Laters!

493 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:45:19pm

re: #479 Salem

You see? Marijuana is for underachievers!

bravo sir

494 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:45:21pm
Time to Legalize Weed?

But what of my black-market, criminal empire? How will I feed my army kids? Doesn't anyone care about that? So much for 'compassionate conservatives'. Humph!
/////

495 tradewind  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:45:33pm

See ya'll later, time to take the brownies out of the oven.......

496 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:45:35pm

re: #452 zombie

Very nice analogy, Zombie!

497 realwest  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:46:13pm

re: #458 Gus 802
Much better said than I did in my #415.

498 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:46:21pm

re: #467 Simply Me

And my question is, what about second hand smoke? We know this is an issue with tobacco. Wouldn't there be people having impaired function from exposure to second hand marijuana smoke?

No, we don't "know" what the second hand effect of tobacco is.

499 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:46:45pm

re: #470 Mad Mullah

I am not affiliated with this site, but this is where I found it, and there are footnotes for each figure given.

[Link: www.drugwarfacts.org...]

See item #9

An exhaustive search of the literature finds no credible reports of deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.

How about indirectly? Impaired driving, etc. c'mon. That's why it's bullshit.

500 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:46:55pm

I'm for the separation of pot and state.

501 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:47:05pm

re: #425 Last Mohican

Apparently, decriminalization works the same way in Portugal. as it does elsewhere.

502 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:47:05pm

re: #489 SpaceJesus

erroneous

How so? re: #404 axegrinder

I think you might be shocked by how many people can trace their ancestry to the Puritans. The life style may be harsh but it is conductive to survival.

re: #426 SpaceJesus

Just like Wahabism

How am I in error, in light of what you wrote?

503 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:47:19pm

Zombie, I love what you do, but it is very dangerous to bring in the needs-of-society argument. As mentioned earlier, anything else fun to do could be viewed as a waste of time. Not all of us want to Serve Society all the damn time. Some of us want some time to be a little selfish.

So yes, your train of argument frightens me. There is a real whiff of ... let's just call it "progressivism" for now ... coming from your posts tonight.

504 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:48:02pm

re: #499 unrealizedviewpoint

We also need context, buttercups may well be connected with some deaths, needs to be studied.

505 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:48:05pm

re: #450 realwest

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you zombie, but I don't think there's a whole lot of evidence that all folks who smoke pot are not productive members of society. Indeed, most of the Pot heads I knew were in fact "hard chargers" at work and - like me - came home from a 10 hour day and instead of relaxing with a martini, smoked a joint (or in my case half a joint). I'd still get up the next day and go put in another productive 10 hour or so day. On weekends (when I wasn't working) I might smoke a joint at a friends house or party. And frequently shared that joint with other lawyers, bankers, folks who worked hard at running NYC's delicatessans, and other businesses. Those few I knew who did coke did in fact become unproductive and fairly quickly after they started "using" it too.
It may be that out in Bzerkely you have a whole bunch of folks who do nothing but smoke pot all day, but that was NEVER my experience in NYC.

Real, there are healthier ways to unwind.

IMHO, those who are still smoking weed after age 40, have an underlyling medical or psychological condition which needs treatment. There is a reason they are self-medicating with pot. The biggest damage is to the children whose parents are "tuned-out" just when they need to be "tuned-in" to raise their children.

506 pink freud  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:48:26pm

As a society and as individuals we should be focusing on our cultural value system: do we value excellence or are we willing to settle for mediocrity.

A society or culture that is about excellence is not a society that is stoned or drunk.

507 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:48:34pm

It was NOT a nice analogy. We were being likened to an overcrowded population clinging for dear life on a raft. In such a system, if they're not contributing 100% to the satisfaction of everyone else - into the water with the sharks!

508 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:48:54pm

re: #452 zombie

That might be true if you apply it to abusers. This can be with and substance or object. People abuse a lot of things and it's not limited to marijuana. Applying a law based on how things can be abused can be applied to a number of things including gun ownership. If you base laws on the worse case scenario that's the logical conclusion. Just because there are fuck ups shouldn't mean it should be outlawed.

509 axegrinder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:48:55pm

re: #426 SpaceJesus

Just like Wahabism

Not condoning the philosophy, just saying their discipline and work ethic helped them endure. Wahabism isn't going away either.re: #434 So?

Ask them!
I have. I know. Another generalization on your part. Some artists might. Others might not. Expand your mind and float downstream...
We are all not built the same way. All the evolutionary threads should have proved that to you by now. My brain, is nothing like yours. It doesn't fire the same way, it doesn't react the same way, it doesn't interpret the same way. Yet here you make generaizations about musicians. Gimme a break.

While Clapton's live performances are still awesome(I assume he gets some adrenaline rush from the crowds) his genius seemed to wane after he quit using. That's my opinion; not his. Jazz and blues being improvisational, I believe drugs that relax and reduce inhibitions can enhance innovation. It may be sloppy at times but the stretches of brilliance are worth it.

510 So?  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:49:07pm

It all boild down to personal choice in my opinion. Just like eating a banana or a hamburger. You might argue food isn't equivalent to drugs and doesn't cause damage to society like drugs do. Well the guy who eats 1000 bananas will be way healthier and more productive (if that's your criteria for life) than the guy who gobbles down 1000 burgers. Don't you think it's time people took responsibility for their own lives?

It's late gotta go!

511 realwest  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:49:23pm

re: #460 Mad Mullah
In my definitely unscientific experience, folks who drive cars while stone on grass are likely to go VERRRRY SLOWLLLY and drive Ultra-Cautiouslessly.

512 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:49:54pm

re: #499 unrealizedviewpoint

Cell Phones are just as bad then.

513 So?  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:50:11pm

re: #500 HOGZnCHIX

I'm for the separation of pot and state.

I'm for separation of pots and pans.

514 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:50:28pm

re: #511 realwest

In my definitely unscientific experience, folks who drive cars while stone on grass are likely to go VERRRRY SLOWLLLY and drive Ultra-Cautiouslessly.

?

515 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:50:36pm

re: #503 Zimriel

Zombie, I love what you do, but it is very dangerous to bring in the needs-of-society argument. As mentioned earlier, anything else fun to do could be viewed as a waste of time. Not all of us want to Serve Society all the damn time. Some of us want some time to be a little selfish.

So yes, your train of argument frightens me. There is a real whiff of ... let's just call it "progressivism" for now ... coming from your posts tonight.

The religious right is "progressive" about social issues--meaning they like to tell people what to do in their personal lives because they know better. Just like libs on economical issues. I don't think zombie is in that vain generally. But his arguments this evening on the issue of pot use do fit in with that strain of conservatism.

516 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:51:20pm

re: #296 Timbre

You legalizers need to beware of toxic marijuana grown in contaminated soil. Cadmium poisoning is dreadful.

And just how likely is it that people are going to be routinely growing pot on Cadmium-contaminated soil? Would, say, tomatoes grown on cadmium-contaminated soil be any less hazardous?

I guess I should quit drinking beer, because, hey, people have bled to death from cuts caused by broken glass.

517 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:51:36pm

re: #6 Sharmuta

People say pot is a gateway drug. I say it's beer.

Pot is a gateway drug. I never did any drugs before I smoked pot, but once I had smoked pot, I started smoking tobacco and drinking coffee.

Don't smoke pot any more, but I am still hooked on nicotine and caffeine.

/itsaconspiracy....

518 solomonpanting  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:52:04pm

re: #498 Bagua

re: #467 Simply Me

And my question is, what about second hand smoke? We know this is an issue with tobacco. Wouldn't there be people having impaired function from exposure to second hand marijuana smoke?

No, we don't "know" what the second hand effect of tobacco is.

Apparently the government does, as there are lawsuits and verdicts punishing those who create second-hand smoke.

519 realwest  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:52:07pm

re: #467 Simply Me
"what about second hand smoke?" I think that's a legitmate question. Is there such a thing as a "contact high" - you know, if you're in a room at a party and several folks are smoking weed, will you get high also.
Again, from my own extremely unscientific observations, no, you won't. But it's certainly something that should be studied.

520 wiffersnapper  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:52:32pm

Meh. Prefer if it weren't. After all it would just mean it would get regulated by the government, and everyone loooooves the fantastice job big government is doing right now.

If it happens, oh well.

521 Salamantis  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:52:46pm

It is surpassingly clear which side of the individualist-collectivist divide pot prohibitionists inhabit.

522 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:52:59pm

re: #518 solomonpanting

Yes, yet another example of politics misrepresenting the science.

523 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:53:04pm

I have to agree with Zim. Human nature is fixed, with societal benefits coming slowly. But humans always have and always will desire inebriation in either moderation or excess. Making that criminal doesn't benefit society either.

524 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:53:29pm

re: #502 Dark_Falcon

How am I in error, in light of what you wrote?


how many of our founding fathers were puritans again?

525 neocon hippie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:53:36pm

I know many, many people who use marijuana regularly but responsibly who are productive, hard-working citizens, good parents, etc.

526 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:53:38pm

re: #472 Sharmuta

Every pot smoker I know contributes to this society. They work, they pay taxes, they spend money, they do all the things regular people do except they also smoke pot.

How can anyone argue with that?

527 Simply Me  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:53:50pm

re: #490 BryanS

Replace the word "pot" with the word "alcohol" or "tobacco". Same arguments hold, but the rights of the individual are given priority over your concerns for those two and not pot.

Hi BryanS,

I know. And I am so glad that tobacco smoking is not permitted in restaurants and offices anymore. And really, no one in my region and socio-economic class is smoking tobacco anymore. It is stigmatized. Even in Paris it is being phased out.

And I am so glad that people aren't drinking alcohol at lunch anymore.

We are moving in a more healthy direction with these two. Why move in the opposite direction with marijuana.

528 AmeriDan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:53:58pm

I had a -short lived- relationship with a woman who huffed paint. She would do it while driving and ended up in many a ditch. She will end up killing herself and maybe others on some road one night.

Should we outlaw aerosol spray paints allso?

529 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:54:31pm

Would you ppl pls stop commenting so I can go to bed?

530 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:54:53pm

re: #526 unrealizedviewpoint

How can anyone argue with that?

If they didn't work, they couldn't get their weed, dude. ;)

531 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:55:31pm

re: #528 AmeriDan

I had a -short lived- relationship with a woman who huffed paint. She would do it while driving and ended up in many a ditch. She will end up killing herself and maybe others on some road one night.

Should we outlaw aerosol spray paints allso?

It's been proposed many times.

532 sngnsgt  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:55:43pm

re: #296 Timbre

You legalizers need to beware of toxic marijuana grown in contaminated soil. Cadmium poisoning is dreadful.

That's why we have potting soil and Miracle Grow. ;-)

533 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:55:44pm

re: #507 Zimriel

It was NOT a nice analogy. We were being likened to an overcrowded population clinging for dear life on a raft. In such a system, if they're not contributing 100% to the satisfaction of everyone else - into the water with the sharks!

Zimriel, with respect, I don't think that's what Zombie was saying. He was saying that stoners often just leach off of others and don't really contribute at all. It fine to have 'selfish' time, but you should also put in time getting things done. Zombie was arguing that Pot tends to upset the balance.

534 dapperdave  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:55:46pm

I'm completely against legalizing weed. I remember when I was 16 years old and started smoking weed, by the time I was 20 I had graduated to coke and by the time I was in my 30's my life was turned upside down by Jack Daniels and Cocaine.
Just think, this all started when I went to a party when I was a teenager and started smoking weed, by the time I was in my 30's that party I went to when I was 16 had turned into a tyrant that wanted me dead.

535 Fenway_Nation  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:55:57pm

re: #511 realwest

In my definitely unscientific experience, folks who drive cars while stone on grass are likely to go VERRRRY SLOWLLLY and drive Ultra-Cautiouslessly.

So my grandpa was stoned all those times he was driving? Who knew?

/

536 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:55:58pm

re: #512 hazzyday

Cell Phones are just as bad then.

Cell phone driving equals pot impaired driving? Really?

537 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:56:14pm

re: #324 Sosigado

Fuck you.

Nice going, you just validated his argument.

538 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:56:32pm

re: #528 AmeriDan

I had a -short lived- relationship with a woman who huffed paint. She would do it while driving and ended up in many a ditch. She will end up killing herself and maybe others on some road one night.

Should we outlaw aerosol spray paints allso?

Holy crap! That's some story!

539 AmeriDan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:56:38pm

re: #531 Gus 802

It's been proposed many times.

Really? I hadn't heard of any efforts.

540 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:56:41pm

re: #523 Sharmuta

I have to agree with Zim.

Obvious proof that LGF is teh ECHO CHAMBER!
:^)

541 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:57:09pm

re: #509 axegrinder

Well, it seemed to me like you were condoning their lifestyle by arguing the same things they argued. That the only real pleasure in life is obtained through work. Anything else is just an escape or shortcut, and therefore wrong, correct?

542 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:57:17pm

re: #511 realwest

In my definitely unscientific experience, folks who drive cars while stone on grass are likely to go VERRRRY SLOWLLLY and drive Ultra-Cautiouslessly.

In a looowww riddeerrrrr.............

/can't believe there haven't been and Cheech and Chong jokes yet-

543 neocon hippie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:57:45pm

I think this is the first time I have had a fundamental disagreement with Zombie.

544 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:58:09pm

re: #504 Bagua

We also need context, buttercups may well be connected with some deaths, needs to be studied.

Let's get some of the Ones stimulus dollars on it.

545 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:58:20pm

Pot will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no pot.

546 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:58:34pm

re: #534 dapperdave

I'm completely against legalizing weed. I remember when I was 16 years old and started smoking weed, by the time I was 20 I had graduated to coke and by the time I was in my 30's my life was turned upside down by Jack Daniels and Cocaine.
Just think, this all started when I went to a party when I was a teenager and started smoking weed, by the time I was in my 30's that party I went to when I was 16 had turned into a tyrant that wanted me dead.

so weed was illegal when you went to that party right

547 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:58:34pm

re: #524 SpaceJesus

how many of our founding fathers were puritans again?

John Adams was, I think. There may have been others.

I'm fading now, so I'm resume this discussion at a later date. Goodnight, SJ. Sleep well.

548 Mycroft  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:58:36pm

Legalizing drugs kills the profit incentive. It would take the money away from the South American drug lords, and from the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Given that people who take drugs are only harming themselves, if that even, it seems like a no-brainer to me. Legalize them.

549 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:58:40pm

re: #544 unrealizedviewpoint

Let's get some of the Ones stimulus dollars on it.

Could you study pot with Stimulus money?

550 realwest  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:58:41pm

re: #477 Floral Giraffe
"the levels of THC in currently grown pot, are HUGELY different than the pot of 20-30 years ago." I didn't know that. I did know that 20-30 years ago, you could get MUCH stronger pot from Panama and from Southeast Asia - I suppose they had higher levels of THC as well.
But most of my experience was with nothing particularly "exotic" so I couldn't say anything about THC levels now or then. I'd smoke a half a joint after a long hard day at work, instead of drinking a martini or scotch and then eat dinner, converse or whatever with my wife, go to sleep, get up and haul some more of those never ending rocks up the hill.
How do you know that THC levels are higher now than they used to be? And why?

551 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:58:46pm

re: #527 Simply Me

Hi BryanS,

I know. And I am so glad that tobacco smoking is not permitted in restaurants and offices anymore. And really, no one in my region and socio-economic class is smoking tobacco anymore. It is stigmatized. Even in Paris it is being phased out.

And I am so glad that people aren't drinking alcohol at lunch anymore.

We are moving in a more healthy direction with these two. Why move in the opposite direction with marijuana.

Because my health is not the business of government--at least I'd like to keep it that way. I don't smoke or drink, but that doesn't make me a better person or more valuable to society. Where does this regulation of the personal life end? Do we criminalize french fries for making people fat? How about criminalizing unprotected sex? Oh wait, even better, maybe we can criminalize sex out of wedlock?

Problem with do gooder social engineering is that once you go down that path, there is no end. That, my friend, is the pernicious cancer that is progressivism.

552 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:59:09pm

Legalize Hemp.

Decriminalize Pot.

553 AmeriDan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:59:12pm

re: #538 NukeAtomrod

Holy crap! That's some story!

Yup, sad but true, and don't get me started on my two ex-wives. We'll be here all night. :)

554 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:59:31pm

re: #20 Sosigado

$15 billion? Man, there sure are a lot of stoners in CA, eh?

I don't smoke it anymore, but I still identify myself as a CA stoner. Well, hessian, to be more accurate.

Rock On!

555 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:59:39pm

re: #536 unrealizedviewpoint

Cell phone driving equals pot impaired driving? Really?

If you are attributing driving accidents as part of the pot mortality incidents. Then yes. Newspapers say it is just as bad as drunk driving. State patrol seems to want to back that up.

556 DJGOLDY90  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:59:40pm

legalize it... cigarettes(legal) + alcohol(legal) = marijuana(illegal)

oh, except marijuana isn't addictive... and shut the hell up if you try to tell me it is.

557 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:59:48pm

re: #545 HOGZnCHIX

Pot will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no pot.


HOGZnCHIX, I hereby bestow upon you the title of Little Green Confucious

558 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:59:51pm

re: #533 Dark_Falcon

Zimriel, with respect, I don't think that's what Zombie was saying. He was saying that stoners often just leach off of others and don't really contribute at all. It fine to have 'selfish' time, but you should also put in time getting things done. Zombie was arguing that Pot tends to upset the balance.

That can be applied to anything that harms society.

The selfish component has also been recently applied by liberals in fact in saying that conservative ideas are selfish. I don't think either case has anything to do with being selfish.

Just saying you know.

559 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:59:54pm

re: #452 zombie

Wow. I'll never look at you the same again.

560 pink freud  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 9:59:58pm

re: #550 realwest

Selective breeding.

561 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:00:03pm

Poke Smot

562 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:00:13pm

re: #533 Dark_Falcon

Zimriel, with respect, I don't think that's what Zombie was saying. He was saying that stoners often just leach off of others and don't really contribute at all. It fine to have 'selfish' time, but you should also put in time getting things done. Zombie was arguing that Pot tends to upset the balance.

Welfare recipients also leach off of others. Which one is a greater detriment to society? One that's subsidized by the government or one that a person freely chooses?

The fact of the matter is, not all pot smokers are lazy idiots. Most maintain their jobs and otherwise abide by the law except for this substance.

563 solomonpanting  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:00:30pm

re: #545 HOGZnCHIX

Pot will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no pot.

Perhaps for an addictive personality.

564 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:00:34pm

re: #468 BryanS

So then we should make alcohol illegal because users of it are less productive?

re: #469 Kot Begemot

Agreed in principle, but shouldn't alcohol be illegal as well by your logic?

re: #471 Gus 802

That same argument can be applied to alcohol.

Alcohol is already legal. At this stage it'd be pretty much impossible to turn back that clock. Besides, just on a purely anecdotal personal observation basis, having a beer on the weekends seems to have much less of an impact on one's lifestyle than being a pot user. I know there are exceptions, and it's futile to generalize, but there seems to be something about the nature of alcohol that (barring being a flat-out alcoholic) it doesn't drain people of their motivation. I think that the "high" from alcohol is biochemically different from the marijuana high, in such a way that when you're drunk you don't have the illusion of having accomplished anything.

All I'm saying is that the status quo we've reached in society (i.e. alcohol legal, most other drugs not) hasn't been arrived at accidentally. I think there is a general consensus that this setup is best for the overall general welfare.

I also feel that there is a generational thing happening here. We've long known that a substantial percentage -- probably a majority -- of LGFers were born between 1956 and 1964, which is what I called "the pot generation" -- people who were teenagers in the '70s, when pot usage reached its "coolness apogee." In that generation, there is a lot of pro-marijuana sentiment.

565 axegrinder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:00:34pm

re: #530 Sharmuta

If they didn't work, they couldn't get their weed, dude. ;)

Not so. I smoked pot in high school and never bought. It was a party favor everywhere and I had a close buddy that always, always had it. Where is he now you may ask? I have no idea but I heard he moved on to dealing coke so my guess is he's done prison time by now. Good musician.

566 Simply Me  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:00:53pm

re: #498 Bagua

No, we don't "know" what the second hand effect of tobacco is.

That is a kind of sneaky debating trick. I wrote "We know this is an issue with tobacco." Your response implies that I claimed that "we know what the second hand effect of tobacco is."

Perhaps you made an honest mistake or are unable to understand the difference. But usually people on this blog are making careful word choices.

567 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:01:11pm

re: #556 DJGOLDY90

legalize it... cigarettes(legal) + alcohol(legal) = marijuana(illegal)

oh, except marijuana isn't addictive... and shut the hell up if you try to tell me it is.

Excuse me?

Marijuana is addictive.

Do I have to shut up?

568 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:01:16pm

re: #545 HOGZnCHIX

Pot will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no pot.

Howz dat if yuz gots no money for zee pot?

569 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:01:24pm

re: #562 Sharmuta

Welfare recipients also leach off of others. Which one is a greater detriment to society? One that's subsidized by the government or one that a person freely chooses?

The fact of the matter is, not all pot smokers are lazy idiots. Most maintain their jobs and otherwise abide by the law except for this substance.

Louis Armstrong
Robert Mitchum

570 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:01:41pm

re: #475 hazzyday

No it's true. In the drug prevention books in my CO's office Marijuana was listed as a non- fatal drug. You couldn't die from taking it and OD'ing on it. Lot's of others you could die from overdosing.

I accept that people don't die from overdosing on marijuana. In fact, there have been papers published to that effect, and judges who have concluded that in legal decisions. But people certainly crash their cars while high, and get lung cancer from smoking marijuana. Just a little while ago I happened upon a paper about people who jump or fall from high places to their death while stoned. And, for that matter, there must be a few people who burn down their houses while trying to light their joints.

I'm sure that the number of people who die because of marijuana is far, far smaller than the number who die because of alcohol or tobacco. And that's an important point. But the number most certainly isn't zero.

571 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:01:45pm

re: #564 zombie

Alcohol killed my mother!

572 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:02:03pm

re: #543 neocon hippie

I think this is the first time I have had a fundamental disagreement with Zombie.

It's been an unpleasant feeling for me, too.

573 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:02:06pm

I need to go- this is getting too personal.

574 dapperdave  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:02:40pm

re: #546 SpaceJesus

Yes, and it still is, that made it very hard to find and if I had gotten arrested with it I would more than likely been spared a lot of grief.

575 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:02:42pm

Pot is Gods way of keeping construction workers from taking over the world.

576 M. Bensson-Levi  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:02:54pm

I'm astonished that we've logged over 500 posts, and no one has yet mentioned (unless I missed it), the wonderful, and richly satisfying, effects of pot on sexual intercourse. As far as I'm concerned, that alone should settle the virtue versus vice issue.
Any thoughts on that?

577 Salamantis  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:03:24pm

As long as marijuana use is outlawed all marijuana users will be legally considered to be outlaws. Including the huge number of casual recreational users who hold down good jobs, raise good families, pay their taxes and mortgages, and contribute positively to society. Marijuana is not their problem; marijuana laws are.

It cannot be good for society when a large percentage of its citizens are so defined, simply on the basis of their intoxicant of occasional choice.

578 pink freud  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:03:31pm

re: #566 Simply Me

But usually people on this blog are making careful word choices.

Yes. Like this:

"And really, no one in my region and socio-economic class is smoking tobacco anymore."

Seems a bit careless to me. Elitist, too.

579 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:03:31pm

re: #543 neocon hippie

Her view might be skewed by the fact she lives in SF. LOTS of street slackers about even in the good neighborhoods. It is Northern California after all. They act wasted even when they aren't. It's a regional style.

580 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:04:03pm

re: #566 Simply Me

That is a kind of sneaky debating trick. I wrote "We know this is an issue with tobacco." Your response implies that I claimed that "we know what the second hand effect of tobacco is."

Perhaps you made an honest mistake or are unable to understand the difference. But usually people on this blog are making careful word choices.

I apologize if I appeared sneaky, I understood that you meant to say that we know that second hand smoke is dangerous, I do see you could have meant that it was an "issue" in another context.

581 jaunte  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:04:13pm

re: #576 M. Bensson-Levi

One point about that; it will make you feel like a fantastic lover whether you are or not.

582 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:04:14pm

{sharmuta}

583 realwest  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:04:21pm

re: #482 So? Sorry I have to disagree with you about Clapton. I think his music over the last 10-15 years is far better than in his early days AND I think the reason he was SO FUCKING GOOD in Cream is because he had - for the first time, really, musicians who could challenge him and bring out the best of his music.
And btw, he quit playing music for something like a year or a year and a half to get clean of HEROIN not pot. And that was before he composed and played HIS song, Layla.

584 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:04:25pm

re: #564 zombie

OK I was born in 61. I come from the idea that if someone does smoke pot they should do so responsibly. I'm not saying that there isn't any potential for harm but that there is potential for harm with many things. If we can reduce that potential in codes I think it's for the better.

585 axegrinder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:04:41pm

re: #541 SpaceJesus

Well, it seemed to me like you were condoning their lifestyle by arguing the same things they argued. That the only real pleasure in life is obtained through work. Anything else is just an escape or shortcut, and therefore wrong, correct?

'course not. Your confusing me with Zombie. Puritans are way too judgmental for me.

586 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:04:45pm

re: #564 zombie

Alcohol makes people violent. And sometimes they blackout and commit heinous crimes having no recollection afterwards.

587 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:04:52pm

I don't have ADD it's just that ...... Ooo look a bunny rabbit

588 Spar Kling  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:05:05pm

If the government was also the grower, it would destroy the incentive for the sales staff (aka pushers). And making it cheap would ruin the big-time marijuana growers. This goes for other illegal drugs, too.

Hey, I know. Wouldn't it be cool if the government flooded the market with really cheap drugs! It would really screw up the finances of the drug lords! Or maybe the government is doing this already, which would explain the recent upsurge in drug-related executions in Mexico and the border towns.

I wonder whether there would be any difference between legalizing marijuana and the legalization of the green fairy, absinthe? Commercial distribution of absinthe resumed in the US in 2007.

-sk

589 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:05:12pm

re: #555 hazzyday

If you are attributing driving accidents as part of the pot mortality incidents. Then yes. Newspapers say it is just as bad as drunk driving. State patrol seems to want to back that up.

Ya know actually. You're correct. Why these fuckers can't drive and chew fuckin' gum I don't know. But, you're right.

590 M. Bensson-Levi  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:05:16pm

re: #545 HOGZnCHIX

Pot will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no pot.

The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, IIRC. :-)

591 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:05:42pm

re: #503 Zimriel

Zombie, I love what you do, but it is very dangerous to bring in the needs-of-society argument. As mentioned earlier, anything else fun to do could be viewed as a waste of time. Not all of us want to Serve Society all the damn time. Some of us want some time to be a little selfish.

So yes, your train of argument frightens me. There is a real whiff of ... let's just call it "progressivism" for now ... coming from your posts tonight.

I have a puritanical streak, I don't deny it.

But all I'm trying to say is, that by legalizing it, we will be giving it a huge "societal stamp of approval," and as a result pot usage will go way up (of this I'm quite sure), especially among young people. And the consequence of that will be a less productive society.

I can easily see the historians 800 years from now analyzing what caused the downfall of America, and directly tracing it to the day we legalized marijuana. On a person-for-person basis, we would not be able to compete with other countries where drug usage remains a no-no.

592 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:05:55pm

re: #576 M. Bensson-Levi

Umm, dry mouth is a pretty disgusting thing? (Jus' sayin')

593 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:06:21pm

re: #564 zombie

So only because alcohol is already legal it should be treated differently? That would seem to be the reason regulating pot as it is has been so difficult.

Also, not sure about all my compatriots, but I didn't exist for most of the 70's. I don't think a permissive attitude towards pot is limited to baby boomers.

594 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:06:25pm

If we get the Feds busy with their hemp crops, maybe they will be too mellowed to mess around with the health care system, general motors etc. I say it is worth a try!

595 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:06:28pm

re: #574 dapperdave

Yes, and it still is, that made it very hard to find and if I had gotten arrested with it I would more than likely been spared a lot of grief.

was it the thrill of doing something illegal that made you do it?

were you trying to fill a gap in your life by smoking it all the time to the point where it became a serious problem? if so, you could do that with pretty much anything couldn't you?

596 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:06:29pm

re: #575 HOGZnCHIX

Pot is Gods way of keeping construction workers from taking over the world.

Alcohol is G-d's way of keeping the Irish from ruling the world.

597 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:06:38pm

re: #499 unrealizedviewpoint

How about indirectly? Impaired driving, etc. c'mon. That's why it's bullshit.

Impaired driving? I am not advocating driving while under the influence of marijuana or any drug, but I really do believe that if every DUI driving idiot in this country had smoked marijuana instead of drinking alcohol, then many of those fatalities would never have occurred.

Alcohol is accepted in the society, but it is a deadly killer. Marijuana is a joke compared to alcohol. Somebody probably just got run down by a drunk driver in the time it took me to write this post.

598 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:06:50pm

I am not as think as you stoned I am

599 itellu3times  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:06:54pm

[Link: apod.nasa.gov...]

Great picture of space station at APOD.

I prefer the early clapton, too.

600 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:06:57pm

By the way, I need to amend an earlier post of mine.

I have only seen dronabinol offered for medical use in a pill form, and I'm pretty sure that that's the only way its available now. However, there at least have been efforts to create a metered dose inhaler, similar to what asthmatics use, as well as a transdermal patch.

[Link: www.drugscience.org...]

601 DJGOLDY90  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:07:10pm

re: #556 DJGOLDY90

Oh, I forgot to mention that we supposedly live in a free country... so this idea that the government needs to save us from ourselves by making weed illegal is ridiculous... aren't we more on the right wing side of things here? doesn't that mean less government? less big brother? we aren't talking about coke and heroin here...

602 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:07:11pm

re: #588 Spar Kling

Yikes! Got a live one here.

603 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:07:15pm

re: #37 NukeAtomrod


The greatest danger of pot smoking is susceptibility to hippie-ness.

Bite your damn tongue! I used to smoke tons of pot, and never once gave into hippie-ness! I was hessian all the way, damnit!

604 AmeriDan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:07:24pm

re: #573 Sharmuta

( (Sharmuta} }

My father was a severe alcoholic. We lived in public housing and had a poor life because of it.

Alcohol has came pretty damn close to killing me a few times as well.

605 Simply Me  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:08:20pm

re: #551 BryanS

re: #551 BryanS

Because my health is not the business of government--at least I'd like to keep it that way. I don't smoke or drink, but that doesn't make me a better person or more valuable to society. Where does this regulation of the personal life end? Do we criminalize french fries for making people fat? How about criminalizing unprotected sex? Oh wait, even better, maybe we can criminalize sex out of wedlock?

Problem with do gooder social engineering is that once you go down that path, there is no end. That, my friend, is the pernicious cancer that is progressivism.

Hi BryanS,

Your argument would make sense if we marijuana were currently legal and I was saying that we should criminalize it. But that is not the status quo. Currently marijuana is illegal and I am only saying that I prefer it to stay that way.

I would like to say that your fantasies that extend that to seeking to criminalize other activities are absurd. But we know they are not. In our country, it is more likely that french fries will be criminalized than that sexual behavior will be criminalized. But we do know that sex outside of marriage is criminalized in Islamic countries.

606 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:08:38pm

There are so many responses to my comments that I can tell already I will not have time to answer them all, as I must log off soon. So, apologies in advance to everyone to whom I don't have time to reply -- it's not personal. I'll just have time to reply to a few more before having to dash.

607 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:08:54pm

re: #604 AmeriDan

( (Sharmuta} }

My father was a severe alcoholic. We lived in public housing and had a poor life because of it.

Alcohol has came pretty damn close to killing me a few times as well.

Domestic violence, child abuse, sexual violence, etc. All have been associated with alcohol abuse in various forms.

608 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:09:40pm

I'm off to bed and I'm only coming back on Sundays - you're a strange crop.

609 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:10:05pm

Ted kennedys car has killed more people than my pot ever has

610 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:10:19pm

re: #362 SpaceJesus

heaven forbid people ever do anything enjoyable that isn't a byproduct of work.

the puritans went extinct for a reason you know

The Puritans didn't go extinct. They survived and became Americans.

611 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:10:39pm

re: #40 tradewind

That's one toke over the line, IMO.
You think we have a productivity problem in this country now? An obesity problem now?
Why add an additional bunch of mellowed out workers with the munchies to the mix?

So, statistically speaking, how many previously sober folks became alcoholic drunks after the repeal of Prohibition?

612 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:10:51pm

re: #597 Mad Mullah

Surveys that established recent use of cannabis by directly measuring THC in blood showed that THC positives, particularly at higher doses, are about three to seven times more likely to be responsible for their crash as compared to drivers that had not used drugs or alcohol.

Ramaekers JG, Berghaus G, van Laar M, Drummer OH. Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use. Ramaekers JG, Berghaus G, van Laar M, Drummer OH. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004 Feb 7;73(2):109-19.

613 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:10:54pm

re: #564 zombie

"All I'm saying is that the status quo we've reached in society (i.e. alcohol legal, most other drugs not) hasn't been arrived at accidentally. I think there is a general consensus that this setup is best for the overall general welfare." Very perceptive and I agree 1000%.

614 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:10:59pm

re: #603 Slumbering Behemoth

Bite your damn tongue! I used to smoke tons of pot, and never once gave into hippie-ness! I was hessian all the way, damnit!

I can't argue with anyone that posts an awesome Dio video. This time, sir, you get a pass! ;)

615 M. Bensson-Levi  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:11:47pm

re: #581 jaunte

One point about that; it will make you feel like a fantastic lover whether you are or not.

Will it make my partner think that I'm a fantastic lover whether I am or not?

616 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:11:49pm

re: #567 Racer X

Excuse me?

Marijuana is addictive.

Do I have to shut up?

It's not physically addictive like Heroin is.

617 Mycroft  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:11:51pm

re: #452 zombie

But drug-users are hurting people -- indirectly, at least, by not adding to society and thereby becoming burdens on society.

Ultimately freedom is the freedom to make wrong choices. Lots of people in our society are dead weight, and we tolerate it for the sake of freedom. Other types of societies can be a lot more productive and more efficient, such as fascism, but we don't do it because the costs in personal freedoms are way too high.

Also, it's entirely possible to use drugs and still be a productive member of society. Pot smoking, for example, isn't really different from alcohol consumption. Using it responsibly is just a matter of moderation and timing. As with alcohol, using it in the morning before going to work is a bad idea, but using it on the weekend to relax with friends isn't likely to harm anyone.

618 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:11:52pm

Hippies use side door.

619 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:12:04pm

re: #612 Last Mohican

Oops, I cut-and-pasted the list of authors twice. Sorry about that.

620 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:12:10pm

I think the best argument against legalizing marijuana is that it does have a tendency to make more Democrats. :)

621 capitalist piglet  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:12:13pm

re: #601 DJGOLDY90

Oh, I forgot to mention that we supposedly live in a free country... so this idea that the government needs to save us from ourselves by making weed illegal is ridiculous... aren't we more on the right wing side of things here? doesn't that mean less government? less big brother? we aren't talking about coke and heroin here...

If we were talking about coke and heroin, how would you modify your argument?

622 AmeriDan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:12:27pm

re: #607 Gus 802

Domestic violence, child abuse, sexual violence, etc. All have been associated with alcohol abuse in various forms.

Many years ago I quit smoking weed with no problem at all. Because of alcohol related kidney damage I've had to cut back drastically. Not quit... just cut back... and it has been hell.

623 tyree  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:12:42pm

People who consume illegal drugs know that their habit contributes to murder, extortion, rape and kidnapping though their support of the drug cartels. They don't care.

So why should I make things easier for a bunch of sociopaths?

624 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:12:44pm

re: #615 M. Bensson-Levi

Will it make my partner think that I'm a fantastic lover whether I am or not?

Most definitely, if your partner is the one who is smoking.

625 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:13:10pm

re: #377 So?

Yeah, what about the creative element? Hendrix smoked dope all the time. If you speak to musicians or artists it opens up creative doors. I'm talking grass here, not cocaine or speed or heroin. Grass has this ability in many to make them super creative. I know, it did for me way back, and no I don't smoke anymore, but for other reasons. So don't generalize how people who smoke pot have no motivation. That's a load of bull crap. I know at least a half dozen musicians who have major label record deals, are very productive , creative and live wonderful fulfilling lives. And quite a few painters too.

Yeah, Jimi Hendrix, good example.

Killed himself with drugs at the age of 27.

Thanks for pointing out how marijuana is indeed a gateway drug.

(Oh, and he was a brilliant guitarist already in the early '60s when he was playing with the Isley Brothers, before he became a drug user. Pot did not make him a genius.)

626 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:13:35pm

re: #521 Salamantis

It is surpassingly clear which side of the individualist-collectivist divide pot prohibitionists inhabit.

Amen to that.

627 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:13:44pm

re: #597 Mad Mullah

Marijuana is a joke compared to alcohol. Somebody probably just got run down by a drunk driver in the time it took me to write this post.

Some 9-year old boys life (for all intensive purposes) just ended when he hit that joint. He's now destined to drop out of school, he'll be washing dishes 3 days a week at the local retirement home. Oh well, let's legalize it.

628 Simply Me  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:13:45pm

re: #580 Bagua

Hi Bagua,

I just meant that we know that this issue of second hand smoke has been raised with regard to tobacco.

I was wondering what happens to other people in the room when pot is being smoked. Do people get a mild buzz from second hand smoke even if they aren't directly smoking pot?

629 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:13:57pm

re: #623 tyree

People who consume illegal drugs know that their habit contributes to murder, extortion, rape and kidnapping though their support of the drug cartels. They don't care.

So why should I make things easier for a bunch of sociopaths?

because if weed was legal and locally grown, those cartels would no longer exist.

630 HelloDare  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:14:05pm

Look what Woot is selling tonight.

631 solomonpanting  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:14:13pm

re: #609 HOGZnCHIX

Ted kennedys car has killed more people than my pot ever has

So, do you grow your own? Or does it come from a source whose history you have total knowledge about?

632 axegrinder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:14:17pm

re: #583 realwest

Sorry I have to disagree with you about Clapton. I think his music over the last 10-15 years is far better than in his early days AND I think the reason he was SO FUCKING GOOD in Cream is because he had - for the first time, really, musicians who could challenge him and bring out the best of his music.
And btw, he quit playing music for something like a year or a year and a half to get clean of HEROIN not pot. And that was before he composed and played HIS song, Layla.

..with another group of awesome musicians. Dwayne Almand in particular with him on that song. Yes, I knew it was heroin. I didn't mean to imply he should have stayed on it; I'm saying I liked his improv(solos) better during his early years. Mozart was a drug fiend.

633 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:14:18pm

g-Nite

634 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:14:23pm

re: #386 Spare O'Lake

You could make a similar argument against any risky non-productive activity which happens to be enjoyable.
Your analysis is somewhat judgmental and puritanical.
 And contrary to a literalist interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
In short, you are correct.

Hell yeah I'm judgmental. And proud of it.

635 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:14:28pm

re: #616 hazzyday

It's not physically addictive like Heroin is.

Correct.

It is very much mentally addictive.

636 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:14:55pm

re: #627 unrealizedviewpoint

Sorry this has been bothering me...I think the phrase is, "for all intents and purposes".

637 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:15:00pm

re: #623 tyree

People who consume illegal drugs know that their habit contributes to murder, extortion, rape and kidnapping though their support of the drug cartels. They don't care.

So why should I make things easier for a bunch of sociopaths?

Nonsense, it is the legislators who make drugs illegal that contribute to all what you say. The users did not create this reality.

638 DJGOLDY90  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:15:06pm

re: #567 Racer X

in relation to addictive things that are currently legal... no

And what does the science say? Well, according to the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine -- which published a multiyear, million-dollar federal study assessing marijuana and health in 1999 -- "millions of Americans have tried marijuana, but most are not regular users [and] few marijuana users become dependent on it." The investigator added, "[A]though [some] marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs."

Just how less likely? According to the Institute of Medicine's 267-page report, fewer than 10 percent of those who try cannabis ever meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of "drug dependence" (based on DSM-III-R criteria). By contrast, the IOM reported that 32 percent of tobacco users, 23 percent of heroin users, 17 percent of cocaine users and 15 percent of alcohol users meet the criteria for "drug dependence."

639 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:15:24pm

re: #591 zombie

I have a puritanical streak, I don't deny it.

But all I'm trying to say is, that by legalizing it, we will be giving it a huge "societal stamp of approval," and as a result pot usage will go way up (of this I'm quite sure), especially among young people. And the consequence of that will be a less productive society.

I can easily see the historians 800 years from now analyzing what caused the downfall of America, and directly tracing it to the day we legalized marijuana. On a person-for-person basis, we would not be able to compete with other countries where drug usage remains a no-no.

It's de facto legal already. It's a generational disagreement. people see the ravages of alcohol in their families, they see the allure of illegal marijuana in the bars with with their friends. It's not always a hard choice to make.

640 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:15:29pm

re: #610 zombie

The Puritans didn't go extinct. They survived and became Americans.


how many people identify themselves as Puritans

641 sngnsgt  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:15:36pm

I was a weed smoker when I was younger, and people used to tell me it was addictive. I smoked pretty regularly and one day told myself, this will be the last time. That was the last time and I haven't touched it since. Now, if I could only do that with cigarettes.

642 Salamantis  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:15:48pm

re: #635 Racer X

Correct.

It is very much mentally addictive.

So are bacon, coffee, and chocolate.

643 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:15:51pm

re: #616 hazzyday

It's not physically addictive like Heroin is.

Yes, it is.

644 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:16:13pm

re: #605 Simply Me

re: #551 BryanS
Your argument would make sense if we marijuana were currently legal and I was saying that we should criminalize it. But that is not the status quo. Currently marijuana is illegal and I am only saying that I prefer it to stay that way.

I would like to say that your fantasies that extend that to seeking to criminalize other activities are absurd. But we know they are not. In our country, it is more likely that french fries will be criminalized than that sexual behavior will be criminalized. But we do know that sex outside of marriage is criminalized in Islamic countries.

Precisely. Because they are not fantasies--give the progressives the ability to regulate non-criminal behavior and they will. The status quo does not work--the laws are widely violated, undermining the rule of law. A status quo argument is a bad justification--a bad law should not continue on the books simply because it is already there.

645 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:16:15pm

re: #43 Samurai

Finally, someone who understands that to build "proper" strawmen you must then tear them down.
/

646 SFGoth  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:16:50pm

Marijuana has an extremely complex make up. First, there are numerous cannabinoids, some of which cause the paranoia, some that cause pain relief, some that give you all kinds of great feelings. It takes a master grower to really create the right strain, not some hippy watering his backyard. Anyway, the only pleasurable thing that should be legal is submitting to Allah. No one should be allowed to derive pleasure from alcohol, tobacco, NASCAR, etc.

647 capitalist piglet  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:17:06pm

re: #632 axegrinder

..with another group of awesome musicians. Dwayne Almand in particular with him on that song. Yes, I knew it was heroin. I didn't mean to imply he should have stayed on it; I'm saying I liked his improv(solos) better during his early years. Mozart was a drug fiend.

Do you mean Duane Allman?

(I knew I shouldn't have looked at this thread.)

648 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:17:07pm

re: #643 ggt

According to everything I have been taught in my medical training, marijuana is not physically addictive.

And that does not mean that it isn't physically harmful.

649 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:17:09pm

re: #625 zombie

Yeah, Jimi Hendrix, good example.

Killed himself with drugs at the age of 27.

If the reports are accurate then it was a legal, prescription sleeping medicine from Germany that caused that horrible loss. A legal medicine/drug.

650 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:17:13pm

re: #625 zombie

Yeah, Jimi Hendrix, good example.

Killed himself with drugs at the age of 27.

Thanks for pointing out how marijuana is indeed a gateway drug.

(Oh, and he was a brilliant guitarist already in the early '60s when he was playing with the Isley Brothers, before he became a drug user. Pot did not make him a genius.)

Just popped in a Hendrix CD. I keep saying this over and over again but I still think it's from the association of buying pot with other drugs. I didn't progress to other drugs from smoking weed but I did try PCP a few times from an associate that sold pot. If I didn't end up at his house I wouldn't have tried it. Mind you I never became addicted to PCP but tried it two times. The dealer was actually a pretty decent fellow in Northern New Jersey and a Vietnam War vet.

651 pink freud  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:17:28pm

re: #638 DJGOLDY90

iWell, according to the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine -- which published a multiyear, million-dollar federal study assessing marijuana and health in 1999 --

Do you even see the absurdity of this statement?

652 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:17:40pm

re: #630 HelloDare

Look what Woot is selling tonight.

Mr. Beer is a gateway activity to full-blown zymurgy!

653 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:17:43pm

re: #635 Racer X

Correct.

It is very much mentally addictive.

It affects the brain, the brain is part of the body --IT is physically addictive.

654 capitalist piglet  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:18:18pm

re: #636 Wishing

Sorry this has been bothering me...I think the phrase is, "for all intents and purposes".

Irregardless...

655 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:19:02pm

re: #654 capitalist piglet

Irregardless...

Regardless. ;)

656 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:19:16pm

re: #648 Last Mohican

According to everything I have been taught in my medical training, marijuana is not physically addictive.

And that does not mean that it isn't physically harmful.

As an addict, I disagree.

657 HelloDare  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:19:18pm

re: #652 NukeAtomrod

Mr. Beer is a gateway activity to full-blown zymurgy!

I'd rather ferment than repent.

658 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:19:18pm

re: #390 Zimriel

The problem with that, is the same argument can be leveled against someone who spent 20 hours finally mastering Resident Evil 4. Sure it was a wasted 20 hours. But it's not up to us to tell this guy he ought to be Working For The Greater Good Of Society.

... sounds kinda f-word, actually...

I'm not talking about ordering individuals to do this or that or to make any particular decision. I'm just talking about what social policies to adopt to encourage or discourage certain behaviors in general.

People will always be free in America to do as they please. But many of our laws are already in fact "social guideline laws" which help to nudge people in the right direction. Tax laws, in particular, work this way.

659 Simply Me  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:19:23pm

Goodnight friends. I need to go to bed now.
P. S. I am thinking that this blog is addictive.

660 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:19:53pm

re: #654 capitalist piglet

Irregardless...

lol

661 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:19:59pm

re: #628 Simply Me

Hi Bagua,

I just meant that we know that this issue of second hand smoke has been raised with regard to tobacco.

I was wondering what happens to other people in the room when pot is being smoked. Do people get a mild buzz from second hand smoke even if they aren't directly smoking pot?

Yes, I misunderstood your point, the speed of this chat/forum takes a bit getting used to.

662 sundog  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:20:02pm

Charles, it's Penn Jillette (spelled with a J).

663 realwest  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:20:44pm

re: #505 ggt
Wow

IMHO, those who are still smoking weed after age 40, have an underlyling medical or psychological condition which needs treatment. There is a reason they are self-medicating with pot. The biggest damage is to the children whose parents are "tuned-out" just when they need to be "tuned-in" to raise their children.

What about the folks who self-medicate with a drink before dinner? Do they have an underlying medical or psychological condition which needs treament? And I've never had children so I suppose you're correct about that, but the folks I did know who smoked pot didn't do it in front of their kids or for that matter while their kids were even awake.
I tell you the truth - if you work from 8:30Am to 8:30 or so PM, when you get home (Note, I NEVER drove an automobile while stoned or even having a hit on a joint) and would frequenly walk to and from work) I'd still be mentally wound up from the day's battles. Then I needed to eat, get maybe an hour or so time with my wife after dinner, then go to sleep to get up at 6:00AM, work out until 7:30Am, drink coffee, shower, shave and be back in the office at 8:30 AM the next day. And I had NO hangover at work, nor was there any lingering "high" while I was working. That's how I handled - for a while - the stress of my job. Until I stopped smoking pot and had a glass of wine before dinner, then a glass of wine with dinner. Wine would frequently give me hangovers which would impair my functioning at work. So for a while I did nothing and wound up TOO WOUND UP from work to be remotely hungry and started just skipping or nibbling dinner.
But I NEVER smoked before going to work or while at work, only after I was home from work.

664 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:20:50pm

I'm getting way too p!ssed-off.

weet dreams all!

665 rawmuse  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:20:54pm

Hey, Lizards.
Well, my attitude is that we are already swirling around the drain, what is one more insult before we hit the tubes?

Don't like pot, don't like people who smoke it, but it does help people who are having trouble keeping food down. So, put me in favor of medicinal use.

It should be said that the sacred herb, tobacco, was never meant to be smoked all day every day, much less developed in to a perfect drug delivery system that it is today. It was a special occasion to smoke it, and a sacrament, done by men, in a lodge.

666 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:21:31pm

re: #391 hazzyday

I went on to college and took an Economics 401 exam totally stoned. It was essay. I thought I was brilliant I got a F. I bet the professor thought that student had to be stoned. But in college, alcohol parties were the gateway mechanism.

One day I just woke up and realized I was killing myself. And I just stopped.

You were one of the lucky ones to have the built-in willpower. Many people do not.

Uncle Sam will become the new Pusher Man.

667 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:21:46pm

re: #636 Wishing

Sorry this has been bothering me...I think the phrase is, "for all intents and purposes".

I'm Wishing you didn't point that out.

668 Charles Johnson  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:22:22pm

Looks like Jeff Goldstein is now being a gigantic prick. Guess I should have seen it coming.

669 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:22:32pm

I started to write this comment and then I got high
It was supposed to be full of facts about pot but then I got high
Now I can't remember $@!#% and I know why

Because I got high
Because I got high
Because I got Hiiiiiiiiigh

670 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:22:44pm

re: #620 Gus 802

I think the best argument against legalizing marijuana is that it does have a tendency to make more Democrats. :)

LoL and that is probably accurate. One of the pot smokers I have in mind is a massive Obamaton.

671 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:23:10pm

re: #417 funky chicken

Huh. Pot never gave me a sense of accomplishment. It made parties fun, and made me hungry and sleepy later.

I had a friend in college who didn't like it because he said the next day he had "the lazy dum-dums," but not everybody who smoked it got that way.

I look forward to the time when half of America wakes up every day with the "lazy dum-dums." Oh, what a jolly time it will be.

672 axegrinder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:23:32pm

re: #606 zombie

I respect your work ethic. Make lots of money and pay your taxes; I'm counting on social security and somebody has to pay for ti.re: #647 capitalist piglet

Do you mean Duane Allman?

(I knew I shouldn't have looked at this thread.)

Probably. If he's using a corricedin bottle for a slide that's him. I talk music more then I read and it's been awhile since he's been in the news. Sorry I misspelled the name. No offense intended.

673 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:24:43pm

re: #643 ggt

Yes, it is.

I am sorry, but that is completely 100% false. What is your basis for making such an outrageous falsehood?

Do you have any clue about heroin addiction at all? Have you ever seen an addict try to kick that drug?

What is your experience with marijuana? It is one of the mildest addictive substances out there.

674 AmeriDan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:25:22pm

re: #650 Gus 802

I did try PCP a few times

Since it's confession time... in the eighties I tried Chrystal meth. It was sooo freaking AWESOME that I vowed to never ever even consider doing it again.

I dodged that bullet.

675 Spar Kling  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:25:26pm

re: #602 unrealizedviewpoint

Yikes! Got a live one here.

Um, it was intended as mild humor. The reference to absinthe was meant to start a conversation between the two drugs. No, I do not advocate drug use.

-sk

676 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:25:29pm

Pot is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy!

677 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:25:31pm

re: #670 hazzyday

LoL and that is probably accurate. One of the pot smokers I have in mind is a massive Obamaton.

That's been my experience. I don't know what causes it. Might be a dopamine response or something to that effect.

678 neocon hippie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:25:34pm

re: #668 Charles

How so?

679 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:25:45pm

Serious stoners can be like that. So can serious boozers. But most people who smoke weed or drink some aren't like that.

re: #452 zombie

The potheads of this world skate along on the hard work of the rest of us, and then muse that they "aren't hurting anybody."

Well, I say that planet earth is that life raft. And us non-drug users are the three guys trying to keep us from sinking.

How can anyone possibly justify their behavior if they absolve themselves from the responsibility of saving mankind?

680 axegrinder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:25:46pm

re: #669 HOGZnCHIX

Don't Bogart that joint, my friend.

681 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:25:47pm

re: #671 zombie

I look forward to the time when half of America wakes up every day with the "lazy dum-dums." Oh, what a jolly time it will be.

we already do that, it's called saturday and sunday morning

682 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:26:03pm

When I was a kid, we all sniffed glue. Incredible high, but too scary to continue.

683 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:26:27pm

re: #668 Charles

Looks like Jeff Goldstein is now being a gigantic prick. Guess I should have seen it coming.

What did he do? I think that he's a decent actor.

684 DJGOLDY90  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:26:34pm

re: #621 capitalist piglet

limited due to safety?

what is the argument concerning firearms? guns of a certain caliber are o.k. but after a while they are too dangerous and ridiculous? I mean there are limits placed on a great deal of things... maybe there are different arguments but... you can own cars but they can only go so fast... can think of some others too

marijuana is just as safe, if not more safe than cigs and alcohol... they are both legal... heroin and coke and less safe... those firearms are too extreme for public safety...

what if guns were legal but slingshots were not?

685 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:26:57pm

re: #422 Sharmuta

But that is your choice, and while I respect it, I feel others have the right to make whatever choice they want to make about how they spend their time- even if I agree they're wasting it. That's what freedom means. Some will use their freedom to be sober, some to be mostly sober with occasional inebriation, other will be addicts to whatever. That's freedom.

So, by that argument, by what rationale do you make any drug or behavior or "victimless crime" illegal?

Why do we make heroin illegal? Why do we make prostitution illegal (in most jurisdictions)? Why do we make littering illegal? Etc.? Everyone should just be totally free to do whatever they want at all times.

686 solomonpanting  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:26:58pm

Nite all.
Doobie healthy, wealthy and wise.

687 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:26:58pm

HOGZnCHIX you are hereby stripped of your Confucious title

688 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:26:59pm

re: #673 Mad Mullah

I am sorry, but that is completely 100% false. What is your basis for making such an outrageous falsehood?

Do you have any clue about heroin addiction at all? Have you ever seen an addict try to kick that drug?

What is your experience with marijuana? It is one of the mildest addictive substances out there.

What studies have shown it to be even mildly addictive physically?

689 Charles Johnson  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:27:26pm

re: #683 Mad Mullah

What did he do? I think that he's a decent actor.

He just insulted everyone at LGF.

690 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:27:34pm

re: #674 AmeriDan

Since it's confession time... in the eighties I tried Chrystal meth. It was sooo freaking AWESOME that I vowed to never ever even consider doing it again.

I dodged that bullet.

That was similar to what I experienced. It was just too much too handle that I vowed to myself never to try it again. You can't roll the dice with the mind to that level on a continual basis without suffering permanent damage.

691 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:27:36pm

As far as the myth of the lazy stoner goes, well, it's a myth. I've known a long list of people who smoke and get all motivated to do crazy things like clean, build stuff, work on cars, go hiking, etc.

My lazy ass stopped smoking with those types. Freaking buzzkills. Guess what? When I stopped smoking, I didn't stop being lazy.

/'tis a character flaw, not in any way induced by the consumption of any thing

692 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:27:37pm

re: #668 Charles

Where the geek meets the nerd with the hope of becoming a twerp-

693 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:27:55pm

re: #682 Wishing

When I was a kid, we all sniffed glue. Incredible high, but too scary to continue.

Now, I'm going to have to watch Airplane! Thanks.

694 Salamantis  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:28:03pm

re: #671 zombie

I look forward to the time when half of America wakes up every day with the "lazy dum-dums." Oh, what a jolly time it will be.

According to a multitude of studies cited by NORML, legalizing marijuana does not result in an appreciable increas in the percentage of people who use it:

[Link: norml.org...]

We know where NORML stands on this, but their obvious bias is not one that is shared by a lot of these studies.

695 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:28:08pm

re: #675 Spar Kling

Um, it was intended as mild humor. The reference to absinthe was meant to start a conversation between the two drugs. No, I do not advocate drug use.

-sk

Sorry. Let me loan you one of these /
/

696 capitalist piglet  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:28:19pm

re: #666 zombie

You were one of the lucky ones to have the built-in willpower. Many people do not.

Uncle Sam will become the new Pusher Man.

You are right, zombie - at least in my own experience, which admittedly, is observation only.

I am a professional musician, and I have witnessed a lot of drug use of varying degrees. I have seen some people able to walk away from anything they try, and others whose lives were never the same once they started down that path.

I don't know what is at the root of that distinction, but I DO know that the experience is not benign for everyone.

697 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:28:22pm

re: #674 AmeriDan

What was awesome about it? The meth, I mean. My town has a real problem with it.

698 AmeriDan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:28:35pm

re: #682 Wishing

When I was a kid, we all sniffed glue. Incredible high, but too scary to continue.

Never did the glue, or paint, but do you remember Rush?

699 axegrinder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:28:35pm

re: #689 Charles

He just insulted everyone at LGF.

Somebody get a rope...

700 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:29:12pm

re: #668 Charles

I admit to scuttling but I never hissed.

701 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:29:36pm

Confucious Say:

Man who Stands on toilet is high on Pot

702 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:29:42pm

re: #689 Charles

He just insulted everyone at LGF.


who is this mad man

703 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:29:44pm

re: #653 ggt

It affects the brain, the brain is part of the body --IT is physically addictive.

The terms usually used are "substance dependence" and "physical dependence." If I may refer to DSM-IV, substance dependence refers to a person's inadequate control over the use of a substance, such that he or she continues to use it, despite adverse consequences.

In contrast, physical dependence requires tolerance (requiring increasing doses of a drug to get the same effect) and withdrawal symptoms (experiencing physical symptoms when one stops taking the drug). Marijuana doesn't cause physical dependence.

The DSM-IV definition of substance dependence requires at least three of seven specific features. Tolerance and withdrawal symptoms are two are of those, but there are five others to choose from.

704 SpaceJesus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:30:18pm

re: #701 HOGZnCHIX

Confucious Say:

Man who Stands on toilet is high on Pot


'bout time.

705 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:30:22pm

Who's Jeff Goldstein?

706 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:30:27pm

re: #692 MrPaulRevere

Oops, that could be misconstrued! I was mocking Jeff G. who always struck me as being a little too impressed with himself.

707 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:30:28pm

re: #698 AmeriDan

Never did the glue, or paint, but do you remember Rush?

Rush, the band, or Rush the large man?
From my glue days, I remember almost nothing.
I lost two dear friends to the glue habit, both dropped dead from it..in their teens.

708 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:30:35pm

re: #450 realwest

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you zombie, but I don't think there's a whole lot of evidence that all folks who smoke pot are not productive members of society. Indeed, most of the Pot heads I knew were in fact "hard chargers" at work and - like me - came home from a 10 hour day and instead of relaxing with a martini, smoked a joint (or in my case half a joint). I'd still get up the next day and go put in another productive 10 hour or so day. On weekends (when I wasn't working) I might smoke a joint at a friends house or party. And frequently shared that joint with other lawyers, bankers, folks who worked hard at running NYC's delicatessans, and other businesses. Those few I knew who did coke did in fact become unproductive and fairly quickly after they started "using" it too.
It may be that out in Bzerkely you have a whole bunch of folks who do nothing but smoke pot all day, but that was NEVER my experience in NYC.

You are among the responsible few, it seems. Most users are not as educated or self-controlled as you and your circle of acquaintances. For many -- the majority, I venture -- pot-smokers, pot usage and accompanying behaviors becomes a full-fledged lifestyle.

And yes, Berkeley is a good example of that.

709 garden18  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:30:43pm

Marijuana is a gateway drug. Most heroin users got their start on marijuana. Some people smoke marijuana for years before getting into heroin, from which they can die and often do as a result of overdose. I work in a rehab center for men with drug abuse problems. I have seen many heroin addicts who smoked marijuana on a daily basis before they got into heroin.

710 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:31:25pm

re: #709 garden18

Marijuana is a gateway drug. Most heroin users got their start on marijuana. Some people smoke marijuana for years before getting into heroin, from which they can die and often do as a result of overdose. I work in a rehab center for men with drug abuse problems. I have seen many heroin addicts who smoked marijuana on a daily basis before they got into heroin.

Nope.

711 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:31:37pm

re: #699 axegrinder

This thread died. Everybody musta dashed over to go see.

712 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:31:55pm

re: #547 Dark_Falcon

John Adams was, I think. There may have been others.

I'm fading now, so I'm resume this discussion at a later date. Goodnight, SJ. Sleep well.

Adams was old-school, although he did like him some frivolous literature. Franklin came from Puritan roots, but wandered off in his own direction as an adult.

713 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:31:56pm

re: #467 Simply Me

I am against de-criminalization for two reasons.
1) I don't want my daughter to start smoking pot and I think the legal issues are a deterrent for her.
2) I don't want to feel social pressure to smoke pot. I am concerned that it will be at parties if it it is de-criminalized and that would ruin the parties for me.

And my question is, what about second hand smoke? We know this is an issue with tobacco. Wouldn't there be people having impaired function from exposure to second hand marijuana smoke?

1) I guarantee you, that if your daughter goes to a public school or college, she will have pot available to her from somebody in her circle of acquaintances. She will be well aware that the risk of being arrested for it is minute. The best way to ensure she doesn't begin smoking pot is to simply let her know that she can simply say "no thanks" without being obliged to defend that choice to her friends. If they are true friends, they will respect that choice. If they won't respect that choice, then they are people with whom she should not associate.

2) I quite often go to parties where a joint is passed around. I simply take it, and pass it on to the next person without taking a drag. Perfectly acceptable behavior. If anyone is crass enough to insist that I try it, I'll say (truthfully) "I have tried it; it never did much for me, aside of make me cough. And I work in an industry where, in theory at least, I'm subject to a random piss test. Do I really want to smoke a weed that I don't enjoy very much, and risk losing a well-paid job?"

I go to the bar, and get people offering me shooters made with Sambucca. I can't stand that stuff. Simply smelling it is enough to make feel like puking. But it's legal. But I'm still not going to drink it.

714 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:32:00pm

re: #685 zombie

Why do we make littering illegal?

I would argue that it's okay to throw your garbage in your own yard, but not okay to throw it into my yard.

715 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:32:09pm

re: #709 garden18

Marijuana is a gateway drug. Most heroin users got their start on marijuana. Some people smoke marijuana for years before getting into heroin, from which they can die and often do as a result of overdose. I work in a rehab center for men with drug abuse problems. I have seen many heroin addicts who smoked marijuana on a daily basis before they got into heroin.

Most steak eaters started out drink milk as babies.

716 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:32:12pm

re: #685 zombie

So, by that argument, by what rationale do you make any drug or behavior or "victimless crime" illegal?

Why do we make heroin illegal? Why do we make prostitution illegal (in most jurisdictions)? Why do we make littering illegal? Etc.? Everyone should just be totally free to do whatever they want at all times.

I can understand the impulse to make hard drugs illegal, but I'd still say regulating them as legal substances would be better. Of course, you'd have to find a company willing to manufacture the stuff without getting sued out of existence. It's price will still be high simply due to that risk . But the criminal element will be gone.

717 rawmuse  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:32:17pm

I also go on the record to state that smoking anything is not healthy.

718 Wishing  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:32:23pm

As for the addiction part of this: I was a detox nurse at Johns Hopkins and never had a patient there on my detox floor to get off marijuana. Ever.

719 neocon hippie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:32:27pm

Jeff G. on "little lizards

Time for a new thread?

720 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:32:31pm

re: #472 Sharmuta

Every pot smoker I know contributes to this society. They work, they pay taxes, they spend money, they do all the things regular people do except they also smoke pot.

You must know some exceptional pot smokers.

The vast majority of pot smokers I know either have a diminished societal contribution as a result of their usage, or they do nothing constructive whatsoever.

721 capitalist piglet  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:32:31pm

re: #672 axegrinder

I respect your work ethic. Make lots of money and pay your taxes; I'm counting on social security and somebody has to pay for ti.re: #647 capitalist piglet


Probably. If he's using a corricedin bottle for a slide that's him. I talk music more then I read and it's been awhile since he's been in the news. Sorry I misspelled the name. No offense intended.

None taken...sorry if it sounded like I had my snark on. Any discussion of drugs usually turns to musicians, and I'm a musician who has never done drugs of any kind (and I've worked with others like me, very good players...as well as people who had drug problems) - so I guess when I start reading comments about the creativity of people who are high, I guess I sort of bristle.

722 Spar Kling  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:32:37pm

re: #675 Spar Kling

Um, it was intended as mild humor. The reference to absinthe was meant to start a conversation between the two drugs. No, I do not advocate drug use.

-sk

. . . betweencomparing the two drugs.

723 DistantThunder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:33:34pm

Here's a liberal UK paper that advocated for de-criminalization and then much apologized saying they'd made a mistake...."if we knew then what we know now."

Pot more Dangerous than LSD or Heroin

ENGLAND, April 2, 2007, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Independent on Sunday, a British newspaper notorious for its vigorous efforts to persuade the British government to decriminalize marijuana, has issued an apology for its previous position and announced that, due to new evidence concerning the dangers of cannabis, it will cease advocating decriminalization of the drug. This latest development should give serious pause to efforts in Canada, the US, Mexico and other nations attempting to legalize marijuana use.

On March 18, The Independent published an article by writer Jonathon Owen in which Owen listed some of the more detrimental effects of pot use and informed readers the newspaper would no longer continue its campaign to decriminalize pot. Owen’s article, entitled “Cannabis: An Apology” lamented the newspaper’s previous decriminalization efforts and began with the subtitle: “In 1997, this newspaper launched a campaign to decriminalize the drug. If only we had known then what we can reveal today...”

724 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:33:44pm

re: #567 Racer X

Excuse me?

Marijuana is addictive.

Do I have to shut up?

Physically, no.

725 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:33:45pm

re: #491 Sharmuta

WHOA! Where is it my responsibility to save mankind?!

Somewhere deep inside everyone, hopefully.

726 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:34:14pm

re: #719 neocon hippie

I don't know if there's much substance there to respond to. He's also passing the hat tonight to raise funds. Probably best not to give him the extra traffic.

727 SixDegrees  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:34:43pm

re: #19 NeoKong

That's a big can of worms to open.Legalizing a very powerful drug for sale has many implications and complications.How many people die or get in trouble because of booze...?
Do we really need another category of that?

It's illegal now, and no one who wants it has any problems at all getting it. If there are complications associated with marijuana use, they're already present and as prevalent as they are ever likely to be.

The economic arguments in support of legalization - freeing of resources for other purposes; potential tax revenues; cutting the legs out from underneath a large chunk of organized thuggery - are compelling.

And as someone who will be approaching retirement over the next few years, I'd rather be competing with a bunch of pot heads.

728 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:35:11pm

re: #77 pegcity

im in canada, its borderline legal here, no one cares, thats a problem and now it turns out weed is being used to purchase cocaine and automatic weapons and is implicated in more than 16 shootings in surrey vancouver since Janurary.

That is due to the nature of the black market, and not the plant itself.

729 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:35:28pm

re: #726 Killgore Trout

I don't know if there's much substance there to respond to. He's also passing the hat tonight to raise funds. Probably best not to give him the extra traffic.

Looks like the earthquakes gonna get it.

730 realwest  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:35:30pm

re: #534 dapperdave
" by the time I was 20 I had graduated to coke and by the time I was in my 30's my life was turned upside down by Jack Daniels and Cocaine. "
As an alcoholic I want to tread lightly here. I don't for one minute think that smoking pot is anything like going to grade school then graduating to Coke and then after graduation moving up to Jack Daniels.
I honestly think that there is something inside of you, as there was with me, that attracted me to pot, then to coke (very briefly) and not unsurprisingly to Jack D.
But I also knew a lot of folks who got to Jack D without ever doing coke or pot and some who got hooked on Coke without ever having done pot. The "highs" you get from each are truly remarkably different. I was running away from myself - my past, actually (as I learned while being treated for my alcholism). I never got into fights when I smoked pot; didn't do coke long enough to say, but I got into a hell of a lot of fights while drinking to excess - and I always drank to excess. It just does NOT follow that pot leads to coke leads to booze.

731 AmeriDan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:36:15pm

re: #697 Claire

What was awesome about it? The meth, I mean. My town has a real problem with it.

The high was wonderful and amazing. It literaly makes you not have a care in the world. No worries about jobs, or bills, or family, or friends, etc.

I can't put into words who great it felt.

It is a problem in all towns and cities now. A tax on weed would generate billions of dollars in fighting a real war on drugs. A two front war against meth and crack cocaine.

732 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:36:36pm

re: #579 Claire

Her view might be skewed by the fact she lives in SF. LOTS of street slackers about even in the good neighborhoods. It is Northern California after all. They act wasted even when they aren't. It's a regional style.

Not in the RICHMOND District! Heaven forfend!

733 DistantThunder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:36:57pm

Cannabis: An apology

A decade after this newspaper's stance culminated in a 16,000-strong pro-cannabis march to London's Hyde Park - and was credited with forcing the Government to downgrade the legal status of cannabis to class C - an IoS editorial states that there is growing proof that skunk causes mental illness and psychosis.

The decision comes as statistics from the NHS National Treatment Agency show that the number of young people in treatment almost doubled from about 5,000 in 2005 to 9,600 in 2006, and that 13,000 adults also needed treatment.

The skunk smoked by the majority of young Britons bears no relation to traditional cannabis resin - with a 25-fold increase in the amount of the main psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabidinol (THC), typically found in the early 1990s. New research being published in this week's Lancet will show how cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy. Experts analysed 20 substances for addictiveness, social harm and physical damage. The results will increase the pressure on the Government to have a full debate on drugs, and a new independent UK drug policy commission being launched next month will call for a rethink on the issue.

More....

734 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:37:29pm

re: #610 zombie

The Puritans didn't go extinct. They survived and became Americans.

Uh, no I'm pretty sure they're dead.

735 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:37:46pm

Well, I don't think that smoking pot is something one should do very often. However, if you think it should be controlled by the state then you're a Nanny Stater and not far off from modern liberal ideals.

736 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:37:47pm

re: #732 SanFranciscoZionist
Oh, yes. Even in Pacific Heights.....

737 Salamantis  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:37:54pm

The justification for legalizing marijuana while continuing prohibitions on meth, heroin and cocaine is simple; those substances are both physically harmful and highly addictive for a high percentage of users, while marijuana is both much less physically harmful and much less addictive for most (it can be psychologically habituating for some, who may continue to psychologically desire it after they no longer use it, but people are not known to suffer physical withdrawal symptoms when its use is discontinued).

Using meth, heroin or cocaine almost invariably eventually takes away the freedom of the regular user to NOT use; the same cannot be said of marijuana. They also kill people via overdose, also something that marijuana does not do.

Thus keeping them illegal is not only in the interest of public safety, but in the interest of preserving the individual freedom that is lost to addiction. The same cannot be said of keeping marijuana illegal.

738 SixDegrees  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:38:28pm

re: #643 ggt

Yes, it is.

Could you provide a reference backing that up? I'm not aware of any study showing such an effect.

739 garden18  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:38:28pm

Heroin, like marijuana, is a downer, only moreso. Most marijuana smokers do not become heroin addicts but nearly all heroin addicts started as marijuana smokers. This is reason enough not to legalize marijuana.

740 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:39:34pm

re: #643 ggt

Yes, it is.

Not like in the terms of heroin, Where if you quit you can die. Of course it involves mental brain chemicals. Opinions always change. Now like an alcoholic could there someday be a medical classification for a potoholic? probably so. But I took it, I didn't get addicted to it in any way. mentally or physically.

There is that thing called the addictive personality. and maybe this was just the avenue for it. I think this substances alter serotonin flow in the brain, and the body acclimates to that process over time as part of evolution. There could well be people who after having adapted to a lot of pot, their brains use it as a short cut flow in their synapses and they feel best when this effect is occurring.

Pot does have issues just like meth with being mixed with substances that are bad for you.

741 DistantThunder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:39:44pm

re: #735 Gus 802

Well, I don't think that smoking pot is something one should do very often. However, if you think it should be controlled by the state then you're a Nanny Stater and not far off from modern liberal ideals.

I guess rape and murder and cop killing can't be controlled either so why bother with laws at all. People are going to do it whether there's a law or not, right?/sarc

742 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:39:51pm

re: #739 garden18

Heroin, like marijuana, is a downer, only moreso. Most marijuana smokers do not become heroin addicts but nearly all heroin addicts started as marijuana smokers. This is reason enough not to legalize marijuana.

Doubt it.

743 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:39:55pm

re: #628 Simply Me

Hi Bagua,

I just meant that we know that this issue of second hand smoke has been raised with regard to tobacco.

I was wondering what happens to other people in the room when pot is being smoked. Do people get a mild buzz from second hand smoke even if they aren't directly smoking pot?

In my experience, yes, but very very mildly.

744 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:39:56pm

re: #511 realwest

In my definitely unscientific experience, folks who drive cars while stone on grass are likely to go VERRRRY SLOWLLLY and drive Ultra-Cautiouslessly.

I remember all too well, a seemingly-endless trip across Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver when I was in college. But I never drifted out of the (very narrow) lane!

745 OnTheRightSide  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:40:05pm

They should at least de-criminalize small amounts of marijuana. You shouldn't ruin an otherwise normal, law-abiding person's life by throwing them in jail with violent criminals, which then makes it hard for them to get a job when they get out. Think about all the dumb college kids who smoke; they might be lazy idiots, but they aren't hurting anyone.

Just by not locking up small-time pot users, you save a ton of money.

I don't smoke pot either, but 95% of my friends have at some point in their life. I don't condone it, but it is a reality.

746 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:40:11pm

re: #733 DistantThunder

Bunch of nonsense in that article, typical of The Independent.

747 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:40:23pm

re: #508 Gus 802

That might be true if you apply it to abusers. This can be with and substance or object. People abuse a lot of things and it's not limited to marijuana. Applying a law based on how things can be abused can be applied to a number of things including gun ownership. If you base laws on the worse case scenario that's the logical conclusion. Just because there are fuck ups shouldn't mean it should be outlawed.

I agree. Requiring licenses for airplane pilots is simply oppression. Sure, in some worst-case scenario, an untrained pilot might accidentally crash a planed into a school or something, but that doesn't mean we should outlaw license-less piloting.

Also you're quite correct that we shouldn't outlaw things just because they might be abused. That's why I fully support selling plastic explosives, ketamine and anthrax spores in every 7/11 coast to coast.

748 realwest  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:40:51pm

re: #668 Charles
and
re: #689 Charles
Who the hell is Jeff Goldstein ?

749 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:40:55pm

re: #739 garden18

You don't think they could find Heroin on their own without pot first? Or go from Mom's xanax to Heroin, or Dad's vodka to Heroin? Just Marijuana to Heroin is the magic combination?

750 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:41:04pm

re: #658 zombie

People will always be free in America to do as they please. But

I will interrupt here to note how the "but" comes in.

"Of course we at CAIR are patriotic BUT"
"Of course we in this university believe in free speech BUT"

many of our laws are already in fact "social guideline laws" which help to nudge people in the right direction. Tax laws, in particular, work this way.

In other words, we have all the freedom our masters, and you, choose to allow us to have.

Which is to say, we are not free at all. It's the 'right' to apply for a permit to do what we want. That is Giuliani Republicanism, at the most charitable, and I want no part in't.

Tax laws do act as social engineering tools. Which is why we have a concept of "preparing" taxes. Which is a rotten, horrible, perverse process full of loopholes for the rich and tripwires for people the government wants to harass.

We should just be able to put in a few numbers into a calculator, write a cheque and be done with it for the next year.

"blahblahblahblahblahblah BUT."

751 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:41:31pm

re: #709 garden18

Marijuana is a gateway drug. Most heroin users got their start on marijuana. Some people smoke marijuana for years before getting into heroin, from which they can die and often do as a result of overdose. I work in a rehab center for men with drug abuse problems. I have seen many heroin addicts who smoked marijuana on a daily basis before they got into heroin.

I find your post pretty funny.

Out of the countless marijuana smokers that I know (including people who have smoked for ages) not a single one has ever touched heroin. I should immediately alert them as to this new danger.

I think that most heroin users aren't that strong willed people and they aren't that well off mentally speaking, and marijuana had nothing to do with their foolish decision to use that drug. If somebody is dumb enough to do heroin, you can be damn sure that they're dumb enough to try just about anything before that.

752 DistantThunder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:42:01pm
The findings last night reignited the debate about cannabis use, with a growing number of specialists saying that the drug bears no relation to the substance most law-makers would recognise. Professor Colin Blakemore, chief of the Medical Research Council, who backed our original campaign for cannabis to be decriminalised, has also changed his mind.

He said: "The link between cannabis and psychosis is quite clear now; it wasn't 10 years ago."

Many medical specialists agree that the debate has changed. Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis. "The number of people taking cannabis may not be rising, but what people are taking is much more powerful, so there is a question of whether a few years on we may see more people getting ill as a consequence of that."

"Society has seriously underestimated how dangerous cannabis really is," said Professor Neil McKeganey, from Glasgow University's Centre for Drug Misuse Research. "We could well see over the next 10 years increasing numbers of young people in serious difficulties."

Cannibis: An Apology

753 axegrinder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:42:05pm

re: #721 capitalist piglet

Ok, I need to take a break and put some music on. Back in a while after I find my old Stevy Rae Von, Jimmy Hendricks and Jo Satrichoni albums. Would be nice if somebody started a new thread on music. Jeff Beck was inducted into the Rock and Roll hall of fame this weekend. That's cool.

754 Last Mohican  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:42:11pm

re: #747 zombie

Legalize anthrax spores! Far more people Americans have been killed by alcohol than by anthrax spores.

755 Zimriel  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:42:22pm

I will go to bed now. Hopefully clearer heads will prevail in the morning.

756 Dan G.  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:42:32pm

Laws exist to protect individuals from the acts of others; not to prohibit self-abuse (in any degree). End the control of any substance that isn't capable of directly killing a lot of people (i.e. chem warfare stuff). If someone wants to commit suicide (verrrrrrrry slowly in some cases), that's their problem, not the government's.

As for the gateway drug argument. Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, so what? Since when is it the business of the government what a person does to him or herself?

757 SixDegrees  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:42:33pm

re: #653 ggt

It affects the brain, the brain is part of the body --IT is physically addictive.

All drugs affect the body. That's their purpose. Note that very, very few drugs are physically addictive.

Non sequitur.

758 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:42:44pm

re: #669 HOGZnCHIX

I started to write this comment and then I got high
It was supposed to be full of facts about pot but then I got high
Now I can't remember $@!#% and I know why

Because I got high
Because I got high
Because I got Hiiiiiiiiigh

My students love that song. Let, they will sing it all the way through, very happily.

759 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:42:53pm

re: #515 BryanS

The religious right is "progressive" about social issues--meaning they like to tell people what to do in their personal lives because they know better. Just like libs on economical issues. I don't think zombie is in that vain generally. But his arguments this evening on the issue of pot use do fit in with that strain of conservatism.

I'm not talking about personally giving commandments to individuals about how to conduct their lives. I'm talking about common sense social policy.

It seems that the pot-advocates here are necessarily taking an extreme libertarian view on this whole issue, and basically are arguing for legalizing everything.

760 BaseballMom57  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:43:02pm

re: #328 zombie

Upding. I agree wholeheartedly, zombie.

761 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:43:42pm

re: #737 Salamantis

I guess, if someone wants to knowingly destroy their lives, I'm thinking they will find the way to self destruct whether it is legal or not. Now if the concern is about truly dangerous drugs getting into the hands of the innocent who do not know any better, sure criminalize that.

762 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:43:57pm

re: #733 DistantThunder

Cannabis: An apology

More....

Overdoses of THC in concentrated forms can cause psychotic episodes and also leave a person with feelings of acute anxiety. Hashish would be the area to look at. Maybe modern pot is getting close to hashish.

763 AmeriDan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:44:17pm

re: #707 Wishing

Rush, the band, or Rush the large man?
From my glue days, I remember almost nothing.
I lost two dear friends to the glue habit, both dropped dead from it..in their teens.

Damn, sorry to hear that.

Rush was a liquid in a small brown glass medicine bottle. The fumes would give you a 10 - 15 second very intense rush.

764 brandon13  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:44:35pm

re: #739 garden18

Heroin, like marijuana, is a downer, only moreso. Most marijuana smokers do not become heroin addicts but nearly all heroin addicts started as marijuana smokers. This is reason enough not to legalize marijuana.

Most heroin users probably started off with alcohol and tobacco, not marijuana.

765 DistantThunder  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:44:58pm

re: #756 Dan G.

Laws exist to protect individuals from the acts of others; not to prohibit self-abuse (in any degree). End the control of any substance that isn't capable of directly killing a lot of people (i.e. chem warfare stuff). If someone wants to commit suicide (verrrrrrrry slowly in some cases), that's their problem, not the government's.

As for the gateway drug argument. Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, so what? Since when is it the business of the government what a person does to him or herself?

See my post at #752

766 Salamantis  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:46:02pm

re: #741 DistantThunder

I guess rape and murder and cop killing can't be controlled either so why bother with laws at all. People are going to do it whether there's a law or not, right?/sarc

I don't think that one can reasonably compare casual recreational marijuana use to rape, murder, or cop killing.

Although this pecious argument was probably also used during Prohibition, regarding alcohol.

767 rawmuse  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:46:54pm

Prohibition gave us the Kennedys.

768 Bagua  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:46:55pm

Goodnight all, thanks for the chat.

769 AmeriDan  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:47:36pm

re: #768 Bagua

Good night.

770 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:47:41pm

re: #747 zombie

I agree. Requiring licenses for airplane pilots is simply oppression. Sure, in some worst-case scenario, an untrained pilot might accidentally crash a planed into a school or something, but that doesn't mean we should outlaw license-less piloting.

Also you're quite correct that we shouldn't outlaw things just because they might be abused. That's why I fully support selling plastic explosives, ketamine and anthrax spores in every 7/11 coast to coast.

771 Dan G.  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:48:37pm

re: #765 DistantThunder

OK. Still not addressing my question. I know that 'recreational' drugs are self destructive; that's why I've never done any. By what right should tax dollars be spent to prevent people from harming themselves?

772 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:49:02pm

re: #685 zombie

So, by that argument, by what rationale do you make any drug or behavior or "victimless crime" illegal?

Why do we make heroin illegal? Why do we make prostitution illegal (in most jurisdictions)? Why do we make littering illegal? Etc.? Everyone should just be totally free to do whatever they want at all times.

That's the question here, isn't it, though? Why do we make liquor legal? Why do we make tobacco legal? Why do we make these things legal, but then make laws about where you can use them? It's a balance, and as a society, we work to find the best one.

773 hazzyday  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:49:07pm

re: #745 OnTheRightSide

They should at least de-criminalize small amounts of marijuana. You shouldn't ruin an otherwise normal, law-abiding person's life by throwing them in jail with violent criminals, which then makes it hard for them to get a job when they get out. Think about all the dumb college kids who smoke; they might be lazy idiots, but they aren't hurting anyone.

Just by not locking up small-time pot users, you save a ton of money.

I don't smoke pot either, but 95% of my friends have at some point in their life. I don't condone it, but it is a reality.

One can be nifonged by the over zealous.

774 Salamantis  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:49:35pm

re: #747 zombie

I agree. Requiring licenses for airplane pilots is simply oppression. Sure, in some worst-case scenario, an untrained pilot might accidentally crash a planed into a school or something, but that doesn't mean we should outlaw license-less piloting.

It is illegal for airplane pilots to fly under the influence of ANY intoxicant, including alcohol.

Also you're quite correct that we shouldn't outlaw things just because they might be abused. That's why I fully support selling plastic explosives, ketamine and anthrax spores in every 7/11 coast to coast.

I dojn't know of any casual recreational uses for such things.

775 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:49:53pm

re: #762 hazzyday

Overdoses of THC in concentrated forms can cause psychotic episodes and also leave a person with feelings of acute anxiety. Hashish would be the area to look at. Maybe modern pot is getting close to hashish.

Hash is just basically marijuana without the buds or leaves, so it is more condensed and thus stronger in thc content. The thc crystals are removed from the plant and usually pressed into small blocks.

776 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:49:56pm

re: #543 neocon hippie

I think this is the first time I have had a fundamental disagreement with Zombie.

I knew that many of my buddies here would disagree with me on this particular issue. And I was right about that, it seems. It had to come up sometime.

Actually, I don't really care about this issue very much at all, which is why I've practically never ever brought it up at LGF. It's not even on my radar screen, frankly. But since it was the topic of the thread, I thought I'd just weigh in with my two cents. I just didn't realize how unpopular my (formerly) secretly held opinion was!

Once this thread is over, I'll probably never think about iegalization again, or at least until someone brings it up. It's not really a topic that is of much concern to me, and certainly isn't a "deal-breaker."

777 BryanS  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:50:17pm

re: #759 zombie

I'm not talking about personally giving commandments to individuals about how to conduct their lives. I'm talking about common sense social policy.

It seems that the pot-advocates here are necessarily taking an extreme libertarian view on this whole issue, and basically are arguing for legalizing everything.

Slowly but surely getting through the comments, eh :?) Common sense social policy should be for the protection of people's individual rights to run their own lives to the extent that they do not impair another's right to the same. Hard drugs are no different than a poison in my mind. If someone wants to put that into their own bodies, then I'm not really going to be able to stop someone intent on harming themselves that way.

778 SixDegrees  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:50:40pm

re: #709 garden18

Marijuana is a gateway drug. Most heroin users got their start on marijuana. Some people smoke marijuana for years before getting into heroin, from which they can die and often do as a result of overdose. I work in a rehab center for men with drug abuse problems. I have seen many heroin addicts who smoked marijuana on a daily basis before they got into heroin.

I'm not seeing any proof of causality here. Most heroin users wear socks; does sock-wearing lead to troubling behavior later on? Most of them drive cars. Most of them drink water, at least occasionally. A disturbing number of heroin addicts wear glasses. Should we conclude, therefore, that all of these substances, behaviors and objects inevitably lead to heroin addiction?

It's a more compelling argument that marijuana's illegal status puts users in contact with an unsavory element that is likely to offer other, more harmful drugs, and easy availability makes for easy consumption. Note that removing the illegal element from marijuana short-circuits this particular pathway. It is therefore more likely that legalizing marijuana would lead to a decrease in heroin addiction, since fewer people would be exposed to the drug underworld.

779 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:52:20pm

re: #736 Claire

Oh, yes. Even in Pacific Heights.....

I've never seen stoners lounging in the streets of Pacific Heights.

780 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:52:23pm

re: #747 zombie

I agree. Requiring licenses for airplane pilots is simply oppression. Sure, in some worst-case scenario, an untrained pilot might accidentally crash a planed into a school or something, but that doesn't mean we should outlaw license-less piloting.

Also you're quite correct that we shouldn't outlaw things just because they might be abused. That's why I fully support selling plastic explosives, ketamine and anthrax spores in every 7/11 coast to coast.

Had a problem with my connection.

Sorry but that's an extreme sample.

781 Gus  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:55:13pm

re: #776 zombie

I knew that many of my buddies here would disagree with me on this particular issue. And I was right about that, it seems. It had to come up sometime.

Actually, I don't really care about this issue very much at all, which is why I've practically never ever brought it up at LGF. It's not even on my radar screen, frankly. But since it was the topic of the thread, I thought I'd just weigh in with my two cents. I just didn't realize how unpopular my (formerly) secretly held opinion was!

Once this thread is over, I'll probably never think about iegalization again, or at least until someone brings it up. It's not really a topic that is of much concern to me, and certainly isn't a "deal-breaker."

You're a special example though. I think a lot of people will agree with you regardless.

782 hiddenlizard  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:56:17pm

legalize all drugs, don't regulate anything involved with them, and people's rights will be protected and the economy will grow. I don't even advocate taxing them.

Even if you outlaw of the selling of X to children, the kids who want X, will get X. Same with booze, cigs, etc. Their parents should make sure they aren't able to even develop the knowledge or interest in drugs, nor the means to go out and get anything, nor should little kids spend money on anything.

Nor am I a pothead.

783 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:58:29pm

re: #776 zombie

I always look forward to your commentary. You are one of a kind.

784 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 10:59:51pm

re: #776 zombie

I knew Actually, I don't really care about this issue very much at all, which is why I've practically never ever brought it up at LGF. It's not even on my radar screen, frankly. But since it was the topic of the thread, I thought I'd just weigh in with my two cents. I just didn't realize how unpopular my (formerly) secretly held opinion was!

I guess that I am the complete opposite of you then, because I feel strongly about this topic. I admire your reports and your anti-Jihad work by the way, and to me I feel as strongly on this issue as I would feel on a topic such as the UN trying to take our freedoms away. I see this also as a freedom issue.

785 Dan G.  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:00:11pm

re: #737 Salamantis

I think you are close in this argument, but off by just a hair. I believe that the appropriate basis for the illegality of meth etc... would be that if use of a substance precludes the use of ones mind, then it should be illegal since such an incapacitation could be a threat to others. It would be analogous to a chimp running loose; it wouldn't necessarily do something wrong, but the unpredictability of the behavior of such an individual would be antithetical to civil society. (this is a first pass at the idea, I haven't thought about it in these terms before).

786 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:00:33pm

re: #779 SanFranciscoZionist
My sister lived at the corner of Broderick and California (I think that counts as Pacific Hts) for many years- her house happened to be across the street from a half-way house of some sort. The cast of characters floating down the sidewalk and/or peeing on the stoops on a daily basis was a bit alarming- Yeah, I seriously doubt that the Gettys have the same problems on their street.

787 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:01:48pm

Well, this thread has certainly been addictive. I was supposed to go to bed an hour ago. So it should be beaten mercilessly with a lead-shot-filled hose and thrown into a hole for twenty-five years-I guess that's my point.

788 stevieray  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:02:04pm

re: #763 AmeriDan

Damn, sorry to hear that.

Rush was a liquid in a small brown glass medicine bottle. The fumes would give you a 10 - 15 second very intense rush.

Poppers.

Amyl Nitrate

789 OnTheRightSide  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:05:09pm

Unlike marijuana, hard drugs are super-addictive and incredibly harmful. I'm all for freedom to make your own choices, but I think we have a moral obligation to try and keep cocaine, meth, and other crap away from kids and keep it off the streets.

If you legalize the hard stuff, the price will go way down (presumably), and you end up with a ton of junkies living off the government.

790 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:06:26pm

When deciding what drugs to legalize, I think it matters which other illegal behaviours are associated with them. Heroin addicts tend to burglarize to tend their habits, which are quite expensive. Meth addicts like to pick up shotguns and shoot people (at least where I live.) Cocaine addicts embezzle. Potheads eat a lot of Doritos......

791 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:08:37pm

re: #786 Claire

My sister lived at the corner of Broderick and California (I think that counts as Pacific Hts) for many years- her house happened to be across the street from a half-way house of some sort. The cast of characters floating down the sidewalk and/or peeing on the stoops on a daily basis was a bit alarming- Yeah, I seriously doubt that the Gettys have the same problems on their street.

I'd call Broderick and California Western Addition, myself.

And yes, you get some oddballs over there.

792 funky chicken  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:09:48pm

re: #671 zombie

I look forward to the time when half of America wakes up every day with the "lazy dum-dums." Oh, what a jolly time it will be.

Why would half of America smoke marijuana just because it was legalized or just decriminalized?

It's not that great, honestly.

793 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:10:37pm

re: #734 Salem

Uh, no I'm pretty sure they're dead. [Referring to the Puritans.]

There was no Puritan Holocaust, no Puritan genocide or epidemic. They survived, had kids, who grew up with the same vlues, had more kids, etc., and their descendants all become Americans. The eras of history came and went, with new names on them, but the Puritans "survived" through their offspring and ethic, which becamed a major strand in the ethic of America.

Sure, the individuals from 1650 are dead, but not their ethos.

794 Dan G.  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:11:34pm

re: #790 Claire

I agree. Also, I'm of the opinion that it isn't just the substance (in most cases, excluding hard stuff) but the dose. Using alcohol as an example: public drunkeness occurs when you've had to much; I agree with such laws. Also, the limits for driving are completely appropriate. The standard has to be based upon 1) the rights of the individual user and 2) the consequences to others of the user's choice to use. I believe that the government only has jurisprudence when the user's actions have consequences for the individual rights of others. Alcohol as an example again, you having a beer or ten at your house versus on the drive home. Clearly, you are threatening others in the second case but not the first.

795 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:12:06pm

re: #184 abu_garcia

I don't use the stuff, and wouldn't if it were legal...

You're not reading the propaganda correctly. If it were legalized, you and your whole family would instantly become dope addicts. Sheesh, get with the program.
///

796 funky chicken  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:12:36pm

re: #790 Claire

When deciding what drugs to legalize, I think it matters which other illegal behaviours are associated with them. Heroin addicts tend to burglarize to tend their habits, which are quite expensive. Meth addicts like to pick up shotguns and shoot people (at least where I live.) Cocaine addicts embezzle. Potheads eat a lot of Doritos......

I read some incredibly horrific articles detailing child abuse perpetrated by meth addicts. I had a friend get hooked on that stuff, and it stole her soul. I think it does the same thing to everybody who uses it habitually, which is what makes it so damned dangerous to society.

Meth addicts are soulless, conscienceless monsters, from everything I've seen.

797 Dan G.  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:12:41pm

re: #795 Slumbering Behemoth

Hash brownies for breakfast!
/

798 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:13:20pm

re: #755 Zimriel

I will go to bed now. Hopefully clearer heads will prevail in the morning.

I sincerely doubt it. I think most will wake up with "the lazy dum-dums."

799 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:13:43pm

I remember Paraquat. Our gov promoting the general welfare by poisoning people intentionally. We should legalize pot on a federal level with the same restrictions and limitations as Tabbaco and Alchohol. Prohibition sounds like the smart thing to do until you consider that in very many states simple posession is a serious felony. It is my opinion that draconian approach causes more career crminals than it prevents. Meth is the real killer. Domestically all effeorts should be to stop meth. Its evil.

If you don't like heroin or Coke then it easy secure the border because Poppys don't grow here Cocoa plants don't grow here.

800 garden18  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:14:40pm

re: #778 SixDegrees

There are many, many kids who smoke marijuana daily. I fail to see how there will be fewer of them if marijuana is legalized. In fact, I see just the opposite scenario developing. Alcohol is legal and, by some estimates, 10% of the population is alcoholic. Do we want another 10% to be potheads?

This is a tricky issue because there is something repelling about getting government involved in our lives. Even forcing us to wear seatbelts is unsettling.

On a daily basis, however, in a rehab center, I see lots of heroin addicts and they nearly all admit to having been heavy marijuana users prior to getting into heroin.

801 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:15:10pm

re: #669 HOGZnCHIX

I started to write this comment and then I got high
It was supposed to be full of facts about pot but then I got high
Now I can't remember $@!#% and I know why

Because I got high
Because I got high
Because I got Hiiiiiiiiigh

Best comment of the thread so far.

802 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:15:26pm

re: #797 Dan G.

Nay. Been off the stuff for quite some time. Been sticking to beating my brains with alcohol.

803 Dan G.  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:16:47pm

re: #802 Slumbering Behemoth

You shouldn't do that; you need that thing between your ears!

804 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:16:47pm

re: #790 Claire
Potheads eat a lot of Doritos......

Clearly, these Dorito molesting deviants should be put behind bars, it's not like there are any real criminals out there to catch.

805 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:16:49pm

re: #760 BaseballMom57

Upding. I agree wholeheartedly, zombie.

Uh-oh. Now you're in trouble! Apparently my opinion is pretty unpopular, as you'll discover as you'll read through the thread.

806 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:20:27pm

re: #764 brandon13

Most heroin users probably started off with alcohol and tobacco, not marijuana.

Furthermore, the gateway drug to pot is, wait for it!...tobacco. Damn near every pot smoker I know also smokes tobacco, or was a tobacco smoker at the time they took up pot. many of them have given up tobacco, but still smoke a joint on occasion.

807 Tatterdemalian  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:21:08pm

I think legalizing marijuana would be a mistake, but not for the usual "TEH WACKI WEED WILL POISON OUR CHILDRENS" argument most of the opponents give.

The problem is, we already have one intensely psychologically addictive and physically damaging drug legalized in the United States: tobacco. There are a lot of people who do claim the tobacco lobby is the main reason marijuana is illegal, and there's quite a lot of truth to that. However, we have the oft-cited examples of the violence that occurred under Prohibition to demonstrate what happens when the purveyors of addictive substances can't get what they want by legal means.

Repealing prohibition and making a drug legal and taxable is really the sort of thing you an really only do once, twice if you're lucky enough to have two drugs whose uses aren't mutually exclusive of one another (alcohol and tobacco, for instance). The current drug violence is pretty bad, but wait till you see what happens when one dealer starts losing money directly to another. Who will smoke nasty, gross tobacco when sweet weed is available to everyone, after all?

808 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:21:35pm

re: #799 HOGZnCHIX

I remember Paraquat.

As do I. I remember puking my guts out. Good looking out for my interests, big gov't.

Meth is the real killer. Domestically all effeorts should be to stop meth. Its evil.

As a Lizard with experience, I whole-heartedly agree. Meth is a real life killer, a real soul killer, not even remotely comparable to a stupid weed.

809 SFGoth  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:21:42pm

re: #779 SanFranciscoZionist

I've never seen stoners lounging in the streets of Pacific Heights.

Too hilly.

810 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:21:49pm

I'm going to clarify- recreational drinking killed my mother. Do not tell me that recreational drinking doesn't damage lives or is relatively harmless. It' a lie.

However, I do not use my personal tragedy to judge or dictate to others what their habits should be. That is the cost of freedom. In the end, it was my mother's responsibility that she drank. I'm sure she'd make a different decision if she knew the cost other would bear. But I don't seek to remove that freedom from others, nor will I ever.

811 Colonel Panik  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:22:19pm

I wonder what would have happened if Bush had legalized weed.

Would many lefties have stopped hatin' on him?

Would MoveOn.Org have become Gotothegrocerystorefora10poundbagofOreos.org?

Would the DailyKos have become the DailyDose?

812 Parker in US  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:22:54pm

The US is currently spending more than $10 billion every year trying to stop people from consuming marijuana

That does not include the care and space that people are taking up sitting in prison. In my opinion that space could be used by a murderer, rapist or some other serious criminal that might be caught if the cops would quit wasting their time on pot.

813 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:23:05pm

re: #774 Salamantis

I dojn't know of any casual recreational uses for such things.

Hell, there are plenty of recreational uses for those things. Using plastic explosives to blow stuff up for fun in the desert is recreational. A drop of ketamine is just as "recreational" as a big spliff.

And as for the pilots not being allowed to fly under the influence -- that's not what I was referring to. I was talking about having a law requiring pilot training in the first place. Restricting who is allowed to fly is "nanny statism" pure and simple, and yet another example of an oppressive law limiting people's freedom.

814 mfarmer1  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:23:54pm

Dinosaurs ate marijuana leaves to help digest the armor from all of the Knights Templar they consumed. Maybe this is the secret real agenda behind The Discovery Institute? Keep an eye out for the upcoming exhibits extolling all of the wonders of hemp.

815 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:24:31pm

re: #810 Sharmuta

You are wiser than most, Blue Lady.

{Sharmuta}

816 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:24:53pm

Free Tommy Chong!

817 SFGoth  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:25:09pm

I'm sick and tired of people who say that weed should be illegal and then make all kinds of excuses for alcohol.

818 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:27:07pm

re: #725 zombie

Somewhere deep inside everyone, hopefully.

Human nature is fixed and flawed. There is no "saving mankind", at least not by any other flawed human.

819 purple  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:28:45pm

Darn. I'm too slow a reader. I was late to the buffet and this last piece of buttock is very leathery.

Somehow I'm always last in line when there's fun to be had.

820 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:29:14pm

How the Hell are we supposed to watch the crap they show us on CBS NBC CNN MSNBC etc with out it?

821 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:30:29pm

Would legalizing Pot be the same as bailing out Nabisco?

822 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:31:08pm

re: #790 Claire

When deciding what drugs to legalize, I think it matters which other illegal behaviours are associated with them. Heroin addicts tend to burglarize to tend their habits, which are quite expensive. Meth addicts like to pick up shotguns and shoot people (at least where I live.) Cocaine addicts embezzle. Potheads eat a lot of Doritos......

Ugh. I hate Doritos. But I don't like picking up shot-guns and shooting people, so, er, what was I talking about again?...

823 Salem  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:33:28pm

re: #793 zombie

There was no Puritan Holocaust, no Puritan genocide or epidemic. They survived, had kids, who grew up with the same vlues, had more kids, etc., and their descendants all become Americans. The eras of history came and went, with new names on them, but the Puritans "survived" through their offspring and ethic, which becamed a major strand in the ethic of America.

Sure, the individuals from 1650 are dead, but not their ethos.

Okay, if you say so.

824 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:34:24pm

re: #799 HOGZnCHIX

I remember Paraquat. Our gov promoting the general welfare by poisoning people intentionally. We should legalize pot on a federal level with the same restrictions and limitations as Tabbaco and Alchohol. Prohibition sounds like the smart thing to do until you consider that in very many states simple posession is a serious felony. It is my opinion that draconian approach causes more career crminals than it prevents. Meth is the real killer. Domestically all effeorts should be to stop meth. Its evil.

If you don't like heroin or Coke then it easy secure the border because Poppys don't grow here Cocoa plants don't grow here.

You just almost cancelled out your great comment #669.

"It's easy -- secure the border"?!?!?!? I think we've learned over the last 30 years that securing the border is essentially impossible. The only way to restrict heroin or coke is to make it illegal. You simply can't seal the border with Mexico, try as you might.

As for your first point, you seem to be taking things to the next extreme step. What you're saying is, not simply remove the federal laws against marijuana, but compel states to make it legal as well, a la Roe v Wade?

Now who is taking the rights away from who? If a state wants to make pot illegal, you are saying the citizens should not have that right?

825 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:35:26pm

re: #800 garden18

There are many, many kids who smoke marijuana daily. I fail to see how there will be fewer of them if marijuana is legalized. In fact, I see just the opposite scenario developing. Alcohol is legal and, by some estimates, 10% of the population is alcoholic. Do we want another 10% to be potheads?

This is a tricky issue because there is something repelling about getting government involved in our lives. Even forcing us to wear seatbelts is unsettling.

On a daily basis, however, in a rehab center, I see lots of heroin addicts and they nearly all admit to having been heavy marijuana users prior to getting into heroin.

Thank you for a dose of reality.

826 horse  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:35:46pm

It would be nice to make something legal for a change. It seems our government is much more effective making things illegal. Making it legal would be a good step in creating some momentum in a positive direction for once.

827 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:37:38pm

re: #798 zombie

I sincerely doubt it. I think most will wake up with "the lazy dum-dums."

Not this cowboy.

Honestly, zombie, I think the big flaw in your argument is the notion that legalizing pot will open the floodgates, and bring in a vast new cohort of users. Pot is so damn commonplace now, that anyone who is the slightest bit curious about the stuff could get their hands on a joint within an hour if they were sufficiently motivated.

Curious factoid: Alberta brought in some serious anti-smoking measures last year. You cannot smoke, period, in a restaurant or bar. Not even in a special dedicated smoking area. The air quality in my local establishment is vastly better as a result, to my delight and pleasure. Now the smokers have to slip out the back door or the front to smoke a cigarette. Used to be the only people smoking out in the back alley were the pot smokers; now it's the tobacco smokers, too. So the anti-tobacco measure has actually had the effect of providing pot smokers with camouflage for their activities.

Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences!

828 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:38:42pm

re: #813 zombie

Hell, there are plenty of recreational uses for those things. Using plastic explosives to blow stuff up for fun in the desert is recreational. A drop of ketamine is just as "recreational" as a big spliff.

And as for the pilots not being allowed to fly under the influence -- that's not what I was referring to. I was talking about having a law requiring pilot training in the first place. Restricting who is allowed to fly is "nanny statism" pure and simple, and yet another example of an oppressive law limiting people's freedom.

There is a trade off- at least to the constrained vision. The trade off in not allowing the unlicensed pilot to fly because of their freedom is the cost of likely damage to life and property.

But you can't make that claim with pot- what is the cost trade off? Spending billions to stop it which isn't working and persecuting people who are otherwise productive members of society (despite what you think, they DO exist) or should we allow them to have their weed and spend those resources elsewhere? "What is the trade off?" is how we determine what is and what is not acceptable.

829 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:39:30pm

re: #808 Slumbering Behemoth

As a Lizard with experience, I whole-heartedly agree. Meth is a real life killer, a real soul killer, not even remotely comparable to a stupid weed.

[Shakes head.]

So, it's perfectly OK to tell people they can't mix up their own meth with perfectly legal ingredients, yet it's forbidden to make pot illlegal? Double-standard alert!

830 cozmo  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:39:39pm

OK, here's the real question, try to be non reactionary and honest now. What does more harm to America, the drugs or the drug laws?
Before you answer think of the people being murdered in the Capone style goings on at the border. Think of the extra insurance premiums you pay because someone who needs money to buy drugs wants to steal your stereo, car, wife. Think of the 50 dollar tax bill that you pay for interdiction, and I don't think the quoted 10 billion includes incarceration or treatment.

831 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:39:56pm

re: #827 Alberta Oil Peon

It increases littering too, have you noticed?

832 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:41:39pm

re: #817 SFGoth

I'm sick and tired of people who say that weed should be illegal and then make all kinds of excuses for alcohol.

I'm sick and tired of people who say heroin should be illegal and then make all kinds of excuses for marijuana.

833 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:42:48pm

re: #800 garden18

On a daily basis, however, in a rehab center, I see lots of heroin addicts and they nearly all admit to having been heavy marijuana users prior to getting into heroin.

Has nothing to do with the "poison" in question, and everything to do with their addictive personalities.

Folks of that inclination would have found heroin with or without alcohol marijuana.

834 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:43:24pm

re: #829 zombie

[Shakes head.]

So, it's perfectly OK to tell people they can't mix up their own meth with perfectly legal ingredients, yet it's forbidden to make pot illlegal? Double-standard alert!

Nope- not a double standard under the constrained vision. Meth labs pose a threat to life and property before anyone even consumes the drug. That is a fair trade off to keep it illegal.

835 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:43:25pm

re: #829 zombie


Thank you for a dose of reality.

That is not reality. It is 1930's propaganda, a purely non-scientific opinion.

836 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:45:39pm

re: #831 Sharmuta

It increases littering too, have you noticed?

No kidding! Tobacco smokers scatter their filthy leavings everywhere. At least the potheads smoke their doobies right down to a nubbin, and then burn the nubbin in a roach clip. Waste not, want not!

837 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:46:53pm

re: #832 zombie

I'm sick and tired of people who say heroin should be illegal and then make all kinds of excuses for marijuana.

Ouch!

You made my brain hurt with that comment.

838 Sharmuta  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:46:54pm

I just wish my mother had smoked pot that night instead of drinking. It wouldn't have killed her.

839 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:47:56pm

re: #829 zombie

[Shakes head.]

So, it's perfectly OK to tell people they can't mix up their own meth with perfectly legal ingredients, yet it's forbidden to make pot illlegal? Double-standard alert!

It's quite simple, one is deadly and dangerous, the other is not. If you can't see the distinction between meth and marijuana, then I'm not surprised that you hold such a negative view of marijuana. And at the same time you are ok with alcohol, now that is a double standard of enormous proportions.

840 Claire  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:48:26pm

re: #832 zombie

I'm sick and tired of people who say heroin should be illegal and then make all kinds of excuses for marijuana.

Why? It doesn't have to be all or nothing. If it was nothing, we wouldn't even allow alcohol, or we'd be Singapore that puts people to death for any drug. Just because it's a "drug" doesn't mean it affects one's body, brain or behavior the same way.

Why do you think that the laws as we have them today have reached some form of perfection? Not to be messed with...... Workin' so well as is...... Even law enforcment is not against decriminalizing Marijuana. And I don't think that's because they are lazy.

841 zombie  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:49:38pm

Well, I gotta log off, sorry to every one whose comment I didn't have time to reply to.

In parting, I will say: I fully expect Obama to legalize pot sometime within the next 8 years, and the results will not be nearly as felicitous as the pot advocates claim. It will be a big mistake for our society, but with so much support for it even here, I think there will be no way to head it off.

842 Racer X  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:49:57pm

re: #838 Sharmuta

{ { { {Sharmuta} } } }

843 horse  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:52:00pm

re: #689 Charles

He just insulted everyone at LGF.

I finally figured it out, and found his post. He obviously did not read the comments on that thread very closely.

What makes it somewhat entertaining is right above that post he has his hat in hand. With the two posts together it is almost as if he is trolling for dollars.

844 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:54:15pm

re: #841 zombie

Well, I gotta log off, sorry to every one whose comment I didn't have time to reply to.

In parting, I will say: I fully expect Obama to legalize pot sometime within the next 8 years, and the results will not be nearly as felicitous as the pot advocates claim. It will be a big mistake for our society, but with so much support for it even here, I think there will be no way to head it off.

Zombie, I have to think your experience is colored by being around people whose entire existence is predicated upon getting high, serious stoners, in other words. These people are not deterred by laws. I've known some serious stoners, and if they couldn't get pot, they'd use alcohol, or worse drugs. Those people have addictive personalities, and they'd be bad news if they were addicted to nothing more than TV preachers.

845 Orbit Rain  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:56:04pm

it *is* time for pot to be legalized...it's prohibition all over, replete with people killing each other over their recreational activities...costing us huge amounts in cops, when fewer cops could be going after higher value targets...

it's a "home of the free" issue

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

846 HOGZnCHIX  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:58:31pm

re: #825 zombie

Thank you for a dose of reality.

All I am saying is that if some how done at a federal level then us California boys would not be getting 10 years for a roach when going through Hogeye Arkansas.

847 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:59:37pm

re: #829 zombie

C'mon Zombie, lets not fuck around here. Every damn ingredient that goes into cooking meth is highly toxic to any creature, human or otherwise, and most of those ingredients are regulated for very good reasons. Not to mention the toxic by-products that must be dumped after the fact.

Then there is the addiction factor. Grabs you right by the short ones. Lizard, if you ain't hit it, you don't know it. It's fucking huge.

Not at all the same as a stupid weed. Not even close.

848 Mad Mullah  Sun, Apr 5, 2009 11:59:53pm

re: #843 horse

I finally figured it out, and found his post. He obviously did not read the comments on that thread very closely.

What makes it somewhat entertaining is right above that post he has his hat in hand. With the two posts together it is almost as if he is trolling for dollars.

I still have no idea what Charles was referring to. Care to enlighten a pothead such as myself? lol

849 HOGZnCHIX  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:00:08am

All I am Saaaying is give Pot a chance....

850 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:02:11am

re: #841 zombie

Well, I gotta log off, sorry to every one whose comment I didn't have time to reply to.

In parting, I will say: I fully expect Obama to legalize pot sometime within the next 8 years, and the results will not be nearly as felicitous as the pot advocates claim. It will be a big mistake for our society, but with so much support for it even here, I think there will be no way to head it off.

I understand. There isn't anything you or anyone else can say about recreational drinking that will change my opinion. It destroys lives, but to make excuses for it doesn't change the societal impact of it. I don't see why pot should be considered any different, regardless of your biased view of its users. It would be nice if humans didn't feel the need to use intoxicants, but reality is that most do feel the need at one time or another. You're not going to change that. So instead of wasting time and resources, and damaging lives with incarceration, perhaps there is a better way.

851 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:05:47am

re: #836 Alberta Oil Peon

I am a cig smoker who stamps/snuffs out the burning end and throws the remainder in a trash can. I do not like having my locals looking like ash trays.

852 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:10:35am

Junk food is bad for people- why don't we ban those foods?

853 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:12:11am

re: #852 Sharmuta

Fork that! Let's ban cartoons! It makes kids violent! That's bad for everybody.

854 Throbert McGee  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:14:16am

re: #19 NeoKong

That's a big can of worms to open. Legalizing a very powerful drug for sale has many implications and complications.

Hmm -- I just did a "find in page" search and was mildly surprised that no one in the thread had mentioned dextromethorphan (aka "DXM"), the completely legal active ingredient in some over-the-counter cough suppressants. By some accounts, its "recreational potential" is roughly in the same neighborhood as that of marijuana -- though obviously it's difficult to precisely compare the potency of drugs that have different subjective effects.

855 HOGZnCHIX  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:15:09am

First they came for the smokers

We said nothing

Then they came for the junk food junkies

and we said nothing

This never ends well.....

856 Mad Mullah  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:17:29am

re: #852 Sharmuta

Junk food is bad for people- why don't we ban those foods?

Chocolate should be banned and special prisons made for housing chocolate addicts.

Chocolate affects neurotransmitters in the brain which boosts serotonin levels. These disgusting chocolate addicts and social outcasts should not be allowed to consume substances that chemically alters their brains in such a dangerous and deadly way.

857 teleskiguy  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:20:38am

I'm impressed with this debate on LGF. Reasoned debate and good pot puns! I notice that the legalization (or decriminalization) camp is vastly larger than the prohibition camp with LGF readers. I like that!
Now my two cents:
I've been immersed in a pro-pot lifestyle for almost a decade. I'm what they politely call a "ski bum" in some circles. Pot is highly prevalent in skiing culture, especially those that ski 40+ days a year. A friend of mine guided raft trips in Alaska, and one of his clients was Olympic Gold Medalist Tommy Moe. Ol' Tommy was smoking grass the entire two weeks he was being guided by my friend (he brought an ounce of something called White Widow, anyhoo...)
I can attest that yes, heavy use of pot can rob people of their ambition. But that's the same with any psychoactive substance. All the law and enforcement thereof in the world will not deter people from smoking weed. Ski bums especially, really like to get high, and do so with alarming frequency while skiing!
Well, to be blunt (heh heh!), alcohol is a far more dangerous drug than cannabis. If you're at a ball game or a concert, and someone's acting loud, violent and obnoxious, are they drunk or are they stoned? There's only one correct answer to that. LEGALIZE IT!

858 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:21:02am

re: #854 Throbert McGee

Not all of us are pharmacists, smart ass!
//

859 Throbert McGee  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:27:40am

re: #852 Sharmuta

Junk food is bad for people- why don't we ban those foods?

No need to ban junk food; just legalize marijuana and use the tax revenues to subsidize health food -- after a couple bong hits, that organic quinoa 'n' tempeh casserole with shredded beets tastes even better than a Bacon Egg and Cheese Croissanwich™!

860 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:28:30am

re: #857 teleskiguy

something called White Widow

Quality stuff. Been there, done that, can't seem to find the shirt.
///

861 Cheechako  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:36:54am

re: #805 zombie

Uh-oh. Now you're in trouble! Apparently my opinion is pretty unpopular, as you'll discover as you'll read through the thread.


Count me as another who supports you.

862 sngnsgt  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:42:23am

re: #820 HOGZnCHIX

How the Hell are we supposed to watch the crap they show us on CBS NBC CNN MSNBC etc with out it?

Drink!

863 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:42:37am

re: #861 Cheechako

Do you drink alcohol?

864 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:43:11am

re: #862 sngnsgt

I don't like alcohol.

865 sngnsgt  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:44:05am

re: #862 sngnsgt

Sorry, forgot the sarc tag. /

866 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:44:21am

re: #864 Sharmuta

I don't like alcohol.

Which is not to say I don't drink- I just do it rarely, because I don't like how it makes me feel. Should I mandate that on other people because I don't like it?

867 sngnsgt  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:46:03am

re: #864 Sharmuta

I don't like alcohol.

I forgot how to like it, I liked it too much for a while but decided to leave it.

868 Throbert McGee  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:48:18am

re: #698 AmeriDan

Never did the glue, or paint, but do you remember Rush?

"Remember" it? Poppers -- more formally known as "alkyl nitrites" -- are still very much around, and sort of quasi-legal in many U.S. states. And "Rush" remains one of the most popular brand-names for them.

869 [deleted]  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:49:58am
870 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:50:59am

re: #866 Sharmuta

Yep. And trans-fats are detrimental to human health. We should prohibit those as well.

/wait, what?

871 Summer Seale  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:52:51am

Back and just skimmed through some of the comments after mine.

I really just don't see where the drug prohibition people actually have any moral leg to stand on. Honestly, again, I'm very anti-drug myself, having been a user for a few years and not having touched it for years now (not because of any sort of traumatic/crisis situation or anything like that, ever...I just got bored with it). But I really don't see the moral or legal reason to ban it. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Strictly from a rational and moral perspective, even considering that I think people really usually ought to use their time in better ways, I still have no actual good grounds to say that it ought to be banned. I think it's completely stupid to ban it. Banning it does far more harm than good. From what I can see, people who are against it have either some sort of "conservative" moral stance against it, or because they have had a bad experience with it (or somebody close to them has had one) and want to protect others.

Neither of those cases work for any other legal restriction that I can really think of in terms of a personal choice. So what's left? Nothing, really. It's a stupid law, it's a stupid "solution", and it is actually a self-fulfilling prophecy. Banning drugs makes criminals, it doesn't protect the rest of us from them. It makes people more curious, not less. It entices, not discourages.

Why is this even an argument anymore? I simply don't understand. It is the height of stupidity in "conservative values" which, by the way, have nothing to do really with one party or another.

The whole "gateway" drug is also a non-sequitur to me. Assuming for a moment even if that is true, which I don't think it really necessarily is, my question in retort would be: so what? So what marijuana is a "gateway drug"? You could argue that nerf guns are a "gateway toy" to child violence. You could argue that cars are a "gateway" to speeding assholes who crash into other cars. You could argue that matches are a "gateway tool" for arsonists. Hell, you could argue that alcohol is a "gateway drug" to marijuana as well. Does that make any of those things less valid to be legal? No, it doesn't. And it isn't apples and oranges. There's a point at which you have to say that people have to take responsibility for their actions regardless of temptations from anything else. So even if the "gateway" argument is true, it doesn't make a damn difference in the reason why we should legalize marijuana. Throwing the gateway argument in there is an actual logical fallacy.

872 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:53:17am

re: #857 teleskiguy

I'm impressed with this debate on LGF. Reasoned debate and good pot puns! I notice that the legalization (or decriminalization) camp is vastly larger than the prohibition camp with LGF readers. I like that!
Now my two cents:
I've been immersed in a pro-pot lifestyle for almost a decade. I'm what they politely call a "ski bum" in some circles. Pot is highly prevalent in skiing culture, especially those that ski 40+ days a year. A friend of mine guided raft trips in Alaska, and one of his clients was Olympic Gold Medalist Tommy Moe. Ol' Tommy was smoking grass the entire two weeks he was being guided by my friend (he brought an ounce of something called White Widow, anyhoo...)
I can attest that yes, heavy use of pot can rob people of their ambition. But that's the same with any psychoactive substance. All the law and enforcement thereof in the world will not deter people from smoking weed. Ski bums especially, really like to get high, and do so with alarming frequency while skiing!
Well, to be blunt (heh heh!), alcohol is a far more dangerous drug than cannabis. If you're at a ball game or a concert, and someone's acting loud, violent and obnoxious, are they drunk or are they stoned? There's only one correct answer to that. LEGALIZE IT!

Wow, you're right there. I used to work at Copper Mountain and I probably smoked more pot there than any other time in my life. And no one ever had commercial up there, always the primo stuff.

873 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:56:18am

I'm saddened by the buying into of the stereo-typical pot head by so many on this thread. It's as if the only people who smoke pot are these stereo-types, and that's just not true. In fact, I bet many people would be surprised by the people who would come out as pot smokers if the illegal stigma wasn't attached to it. Quite possibly people you know from work, or around the neighborhood are people who spark up occasionally, or maybe even nightly, at the end of their busy day being productive members of society. Until some of you come to realize the stereo-type isn't true of everyone, your going to continue to think what you think, but I predict you'd be surprised to know just who exactly smokes marijuana.

874 Cheechako  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:57:14am

re: #863 Sharmuta

re: #863 Sharmuta

Do you drink alcohol?

Occasionally I enjoy a cold beer. I agree with Zombie because my kid has had problems with weed. Messed him up real bad. Just now starting to get a handle with the problem.

875 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:02:56am

re: #874 Cheechako

And that could just as easily have been a problem with alcohol, right? What about people that don't have issues with it? That keep their jobs, pay their bills and don't infringe upon any one else's rights? What about my situation, where alcohol killed my mother- does that give me the right to keep you from your cold beer?

876 Throbert McGee  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:15:35am

re: #576 M. Bensson-Levi

I'm astonished that we've logged over 500 posts, and no one has yet mentioned (unless I missed it), the wonderful, and richly satisfying, effects of pot on sexual intercourse. [...] Any thoughts on that?

I find that pot sometimes tends to make "first and second base" (i.e., deep-kissing and hugging and general groping) so incredibly sensual and intense that eventually I get exhausted and just want to cuddle and fall asleep without necessarily, um, finishing. So it's excellent for erotic intimacy, but perhaps not always so good for "intercourse" as such.

/but YMMV

877 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:19:10am

re: #873 Sharmuta

:raises hand:

I'm here, though I haven't partook in quite some time. Yet my lack of consumption does not much change my opinion.

Folks can spiral downward into any number of personal obsessions. It ain't the object of obsession that's to blame, but the obsession of the individual with said object.

878 Mad Mullah  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:22:42am

re: #873 Sharmuta

I'm saddened by the buying into of the stereo-typical pot head by so many on this thread. It's as if the only people who smoke pot are these stereo-types, and that's just not true.

I believe that the majority of people who are against it, those who either have no first hand experience with it or those who are against it for other reasons such as supposed moral reasons are simply ignorant on the subject. The stereotypes and generalizations have only changed slightly since the lies of the 1930's. They were ridiculous back then and they are even more ridiculous today. People should educate themselves as to the history of why it was prohibited in the first place, and read about the maniacs behind it (Anslinger), their countless lies along with their not so good intentions.

For starters, there are countless strains of marijuana, and marijuana is split into two main types, indica and sativa. Indicas are more generally associated with a "stoned" high. A medical user with muscle pains or somebody who wishes to become a couch potato for a few hours might indulge in a strong indica variety. Sativas are generally more associated with a "head" high. Certain sativas can make somebody feel more creative, or happy or some might even cause slight anxiety in certain people, it all depends. I believe that the majority of strains are a combination of the two, thus giving many different types of weed to choose between. Some will make you sleepy, some will have the opposite effect. It is extremely ignorant to stereotype weed smokers as being lazy, unproductive bums. There's many different types of weed, just like there are different types of wines. There are also many different types of weed smokers, from lazy people to all sorts of working, productive, professional people.

879 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:25:46am

re: #877 Slumbering Behemoth

That's a great point, Sleepy B. Not all addiction takes the form of substance abuse. I've seen the damage gambling addiction can take on a marriage. And then there was that sex addict president we had. The issue is addiction, not the X factor in question.

880 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:27:26am

re: #876 Throbert McGee

Preferences aside, I am of a similar mind. The act is a high unto itself. I prefer to engage in it with a sober mind.

Am I reading you correctly?

881 Cheechako  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:38:17am

re: #875 Sharmuta

I'm basing my opinion on my family's own personal experiences. Yes, it could have been alcohol but in our case it was weed. I suspect, but don't positively know, he was running a grow operation. Several mornings, when I went to get the newspaper, there would be a strange van parked up the street. Didn't belong in the neighborhood. Probably a police surveillance van. He was lucky, never got busted.

But, the effect of the weed affected his personality. Now that he's off the stuff he's changed 180 degrees and is now someone who's fun to be around.

I'm going to quit for the night but my nick is blue if you want to continue the discussion.

882 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:39:13am

re: #859 Throbert McGee

No need to ban junk food; just legalize marijuana and use the tax revenues to subsidize health food -- after a couple bong hits, that organic quinoa 'n' tempeh casserole with shredded beets tastes even better than a Bacon Egg and Cheese Croissanwich™!

Actually- we can just get them all hooked on littleoldlady brand Fruitcup™.

883 [deleted]  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:41:40am
884 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:42:18am

re: #882 Sharmuta

The fruitcup is good, but the "hook" doesn't sink until Red forks with it.
/

885 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:46:17am

re: #883 Tom Taylor

Maybe weed is the reason for more and more kids with authism?

Weed is much older than autism. Just saying.

As for the rest of your post: It's conspiratorial bullshit, and I look forward to you fucking off.

Best of luck.

886 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:47:34am

re: #881 Cheechako

I can understand your personal experience biasing your opinion, and yet my personal experience hasn't biased mine concerning the consumption of alcohol by others.

I'm sorry drugs messed with your family- truly and sincerely. It messed with mine too, so it's not like I'm being cold hearted here. It's just that instead of an addiction issue and legal repercussions in your family (which your kid managed to avoid), I'd like to see just an addiction issue. Imagine how much worse it would be if your kid was in jail.

887 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:56:22am

re: #883 Tom Taylor

And furthermore....

And Charles is wondering why some people are pissed because they lost the contact to their friends...

The contacts you have amongst your friends is entirely your responsibility, and not within the purview of our host.

You cry like a bitch. A bitch that demands welfare from the Lizard State.

888 Mad Mullah  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:57:12am

re: #883 Tom Taylor

Maybe weed is the reason for more and more kids with authism?

And maybe that is the most ridiculous comment that I have read on this thread.

889 cowbellallen  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 2:29:42am

I'm for legalization, and I've never had alcohol or drugs.

For any of you constitutional scholars, can someone tell me how the federal government has the authority to control recreational drugs? I read a story recently about a man who was on the jury of a big cocaine case, and he brought that up and the judge threw him out.

890 EvilDave3  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:09:25am

re: #889 cowbellallen

Interstate Commerce.

I don't know why the judge threw him out (I assume jury nullification, judges hate that).

But under post-New Deal Constitutional interpretation anything that can possibly maybe kind of be traded interstate (as an industry, not your joint), falls under Congresses big regulation of Interstate Commerce clause.

891 EvilDave3  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:15:46am

Pot should be legalized.
However, being a Pothead should be illegal. I hate those guys.
("Pothead" being analogous to "drunk". And it'd be unconstitutional)
Really no one believes pot is that bad (even those of us who don't use it). So, it makes the "hard stuff is bad" less credible.


What I'd like to see is banishment for hard stuff.
For possession, 2 times we give you treatment.
The 3rd time we either (a) jail for life, or (b) revoke your citizenship.
Actually you'd be sentenced to life in jail but have the option of voluntarily relinquishing your citizenship and waive any right to appeal.
You go get high, if you must, but not in our society.

Dealing would be a death sentence.

892 EvilDave3  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:16:46am

re: #888 Mad Mullah

Come now Mad Mullah, you probably just haven't looked hard enough.

893 Seax  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:17:06am

Time to Legalize Weed?
My opinion - No.
Why? Got a friend who is a big time
user of the 'ol wacky tabbacky' from way back ( 70's)and while he is a nice guy...he is well rather...er...slow
in the brain department( almost yesterday slow ).
And yet another friend who's done so many drugs that I swear
that his brain has been rewired backwards-(not normal - as in way way out over the yonder horizon not normal).A 'functioning' person yes -
but not as we know it Jim! Plays a mean guitar though.
Pisses me off no end at where they could have gone and
could have been if they hadn't started sucking on the dreaded weed.

894 The Other Les  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:30:40am

The only reason I could think of to keep Hemp illegal is so a number of useless people can feel good about themselves. This should not be the basis of public policy.

895 NYCHardhat  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:38:02am

Bill Hicks had it right.

896 kywrite  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:40:07am

I will gladly trade the legalization of pot for the government's promise to get out of the health care business. My only qualm about legal pot is that I don't want to subsidize pot users' habits, health problems due to use, or choice to sit in Mom's basement and smoke instead of working for a living. Otherwise, everyone has the right to enjoy their own poison.

(I realize there are tons of users who are productive, healthy members of society; it's just that the ones I knew were 25 and spent their unemployed and aimless lives hacking out their lungs in Mom's basement and eating Twinkies and Cheetos while working out gaming strategies.)

897 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:40:14am

I think TV makes people stupid. Let's ban TV and make it a crime to own one.

It's not the role of government to make people productive members of society if they don't want to be. In fact, our government already subsidizes laziness and non-productivity. It's not the role of government to stop me from abusing myself if I want to! Where does it end?

Here I used to think conservatives believed in individual liberty and personal responsibility, but I guess not.

898 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:41:37am

re: #896 kywrite

It's called natural selection- they're the bottom of the food chain.

899 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:44:41am

Freedom means the right to make decisions other people disagree with.

900 SixDegrees  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:45:25am

re: #800 garden18


On a daily basis, however, in a rehab center, I see lots of heroin addicts and they nearly all admit to having been heavy marijuana users prior to getting into heroin.

Again: so what? I bet that well over 95% of them wear shoes, too; does that make shoes responsible for their heroin use?

If anything, the illegal status of marijuana is more likely to blame for people moving on to harsher illegal drugs. It puts buyers in contact with an unsavory underworld of dealers, and an environment where all sorts of goodies are available. Make it legal, and the users will come in contact with some bald guy at the drugstore.

It's a far more likely scenario, with actual causality invoked to support it.

901 po8crg  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:45:57am

More important would be to legalize heroin. As long as it's illegal, Afghan farmers are going to have to break the law to sell their poppy crops - and the drug dealers are all in bed with the Taliban.

Legalize it, kill the illegal market so the retail price collapses, and offer to buy up the farmers' poppies at a fair market price - ie one with much less margin to the middleman (drug dealer) and we can pay the Afghan farmer more, offer the junkies cheap heroin, which is at a controlled strength (ie no accidental overdose) and doesn't have the nasty adulterations (which cause a lot of the deaths). It's the one move that would break the power of the Taliban overnight.

902 kywrite  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:48:21am

re: #883 Tom Taylor

Maybe weed is the reason for more and more kids with authism?

Any studies on these long-term consequences?

Any idea how insulting that comment is? My youngest son is autistic, and before his birth I never smoked, never drank, never did drugs (still don't smoke or drug, but margaritas - mmm). I'm darn close to autism on the spectrum myself, and would probably have been diagnosed autistic had the definition been that wide when I was a kid -- and my parents never did drugs either (everyone smoked tobacco back then), and my mother never drank.

Autism, as far as anyone can tell, is a genetic tendency triggered by environmental variables we don't understand and cannot yet accurately identify. And it's not all bad either; without people with autistic traits, we'd still be using an awful lot of typewriters.

903 kywrite  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 4:00:00am

re: #898 Sharmuta

It's called natural selection- they're the bottom of the food chain.

I'll give you that one. I used to work in a welfare-to-work program teaching office skills, and it was very easy to spot the hopeless ones. Every single druggie we had in the program, even though they were clean during the training, took twice as much or more of our time than the other participants. And you could spot them -- not because of bloodshot eyes or personal habits, but because they were all a little "off."

I've thought, ever since, that if we took mental healthcare more seriously -- maybe doing routine screenings the way we do physicals today -- and at least educated kids a little on mental health, we might be able to eliminate a lot of the drug problem, and maybe even some of the alcohol and tobacco abuse as well.

904 [deleted]  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 4:21:07am
905 kywrite  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 4:25:51am

re: #362 SpaceJesus

heaven forbid people ever do anything enjoyable that isn't a byproduct of work.

the puritans went extinct for a reason you know

I wasn't going to bother, but:

The Puritans aren't extinct. They became what we know today as Congregationalists, and then in the 1800s had a huge fight with a faction that became the Unitarians. Most of the Congregationalists ultimately morphed into other churches, like the United Church of Christ, but some still exist with pretty similar views to the original Puritans (at least the ones accepting the Half-Way Covenant).

The Puritans also enjoyed sex, beer, and having fun; wearing bright colors; and eating well. They were not the grim, joyless group historians paint them to be. Their contributions to our country besides the American work ethic included the abolitionist movement and temperance movements -- temperance, not teetotalling. They believed, as most sensible people do, in moderation in personal habits, cleanliness, and moral wisdom.

If you're going to cite something from history, at least know what the hell you're talking about. Crack a book sometime, will ya? Or at least check Wikipedia: [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

(BTW, for those interested, looking at the 1825 split of the Unitarians from the Congregationalists provides some very interesting insights in the development of liberalism. I'm still trying to work out the ramifications, but it's very interesting to examine that, and American Transcendentalism, and the concurrent changes to the university system. Not teaching the history of American religion in schools really robs our kids of critical insights to our country.)

906 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 4:42:28am

re: #904 taxfreekiller

Take the power away from the cartel making trouble in your back yard.

907 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 4:50:15am

re: #903 kywrite

No- the big thing now is to stick kids on.....drugs! Just the kind you can get from a doctor. I trust those drugs a hell of a lot less than pot.

Oh- and take their TVs away. Rots their brains.

908 Rustler  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 5:04:22am

re: #35 Sharmuta The reason for the Harser penalties for pot smoking are strickly political. Marijuana alnog with Heroin and Meth are I believe the only 3 class 1 Narcotics according to federal law. Class one means that there is no medical purpose behind the drug and it is strictly dangerous and regulated. Part of the reason as noted above is due to marijuana being bulkier than other drugs making busts easier.

909 JWill  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 5:54:09am

I know I'm coming n late, so this won't get read but here's my take:

I'm a fully disabled, pain patient who has been through the entire spectrum of available legal pain killers that you can get in the US. I've had 19 surgical procedures, many of which added to my pain issues.

They had me on 125ughr fentanyl for the longest time, but the side effects were causing problems that made that drug untenable (it was suppressing my respiratory system, among other things). So, I changed doctors, who put me on the highest dose of time release morphine he could prescribe, Then wrote me an RX for the highest dosage available instant release morphine pills for break through pain.

Which was constant.

And this doesn't even cover the 9 other drugs I have to take in addition to the narcotics. Narcotics are a POWERFUL depressant. So I'm taking 4 different anti-depressants to help with that as well as sleep.

A year ago I sent over to Europe for some seeds and grew 3 plants. It took 5 months to grow, dry and cure them. I started taking the smallest amount between 1-2 times a day on bad days(But not before driving). On good days, I wouldn't. It wasn't for getting high. Pain Relief. And just a little really, really helped.


Friday, I went into my pain clinic and before I could even sit down, I was given a pee cup.

Sure enough. Low level of cannabis.

"I'm sorry. The FDA says you are no longer eligible to receive narcotic medication of any kind."

So I think the war on drugs, started by Nixon for political points has really lost it's way, and has just become institutionalized.

But that's just the opinion of a veteran who worked hard until he had a catastrophic injury. And has now ended up on a list of drug offenders.

910 Caboose  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 6:03:27am

"Consensual crimes" shouldn't be. Essentially, anything that does not put another person or their property in harms' way should not be illegal. Read this. Excellent arguments for decriminalization of much which is illegal now. (RIP, Peter McWilliams, whose death was hastened by stupid anti-pot laws.)

I haven't touched pot since 1978, don't ever intend to again and have no desire to try anything else, FWIW, I have also maintained a TS clearance since 1985.

911 PatriotLizardoid  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 6:05:29am

My .02 cents: I miss pot. I used to grow it in my closet at the University of Washington (Seattle, of course). I could never tolerate alcohol, and weed treated my body just right. I stopped smoking it after college because (1) it was time to grow up and actually DO something besides work on my couch's comfy ass groove, (2) I wanted to be a functional parent someday and (3) part of being a functioning adult means not sitting in jail after the Oregon country fair ;-)

People are FAR more deadly drunk than they are stoned. And as a parent, I would be far more comfortable with my grown sons smoking dope in their dorm rooms than I would with them binge drinking in the frat house.

912 docremulac  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 6:24:36am

I think that the "legalize and tax strategy" may be getting in the way of simply legalizing it to some extent.

Some might be willing to drop the criminalization, lower or eliminate the penalties for use of small amounts etc but balk at the idea of making it into a state sanctioned industry like tobacco. I know the tax strategy is something to entice money hungry politicians to legalization but the people need to get behind it too and the jump from throwing people in jail to having a Department of Pot Revenue might just be too much of a jump for many if not most.

I think weed is horrible myself but there are lots of horrible things I don't want to waste law enforcement time and money to interdict.

I say unceremoniously drop the penalties a little at a time, a bill at at time, let the people get used to it and know that civilization won't collapse. Keep it illegal to drive a car of give to kids and eventually take all the money away from the drug dealers by making it too cheap to be worth their while.

And make that the goal, eliminate the cash flow to the criminal element by making it legal. Weed is very easy to grow because, well, it's a weed. The price for a pound of this stuff should be $3.50 tops for the really good stuff. Hardly something that's going to make it worth fighting over for the Mexican drug cartels.

913 Teh Flowah  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 6:33:50am

re: #60 ggt

Hey Night Lizards! It's snowing sideways in the Very Far Western Suburbs of Chicagoland right now.

Economically, it might seem like a smart thing to legalize pot. I don't know. As a lover of the weed, I am very glad I quit nearly 13 years ago. Those that didn't, at my age, are F@CKIN' STUPID now. Long-term use does something to the brain that alcohol doesn't do.

I find that it is also a de-motivator. So many "losers" are pot-smokers. It may be a wonderful soma tablet substitute, but I don't think it would be good for individuals or society as-a-whole for it to be legalized for recreational use.

I do, however, have no problem with bona fide medical use or research in to the benefits of the plant. As I understand it there are a lot of roadblocks to researching it. I think it might have benefits as an anti-anxiety med, if the negative attributes could be overcome.

Perhaps there is a way to decriminalize it, without giving the message that it is "ok" to get high.

How you-all doing tonite.

It's hilarious that all these things also apply to Alcohol. We say it's ok to drink without getting piss-drunk all the time.

On the taxing issue, I would say be careful and find the ideal tax rate, not "tax the hell out of it". If you tax the hell out of it, it has the same effect as making it illegal. You've just lost the benefit of legalization.

914 ubu roi  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 6:50:32am

As long as there are real penalties for driving while stoned (smoke pot, drive a car, go to jail just like DUI) and they are enforced, I'm fine with it. Pot smokers are not going to like that. Two things pot smokers always get wrong: pot doesn't have adverse long-term effects (or, alternately, it's not as bad as alchohol), and, I can drive fine on pot.

915 soxfan4life  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 6:57:24am

re: #914 ubu roi

As long as there are real penalties for driving while stoned (smoke pot, drive a car, go to jail just like DUI) and they are enforced, I'm fine with it. Pot smokers are not going to like that. Two things pot smokers always get wrong: pot doesn't have adverse long-term effects (or, alternately, it's not as bad as alchohol), and, I can drive fine on pot.

The test for driving under the influence will be the sticking point. If there is no way to test for recent use, then there will be a push to eliminate DUI laws by some lunatic fringe. I see a huge upswing in lawsuits and insurance payouts, if someone struck my vehicle, I would ask for a blood test for THC and if present press for charges of driving under the influence.

916 Eric Castillo  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 6:58:33am

What are the arguments for keeping it illegal?
1) Allows the US to send our military wherever we want for anti-drug ops.
2) Allows for racial profiling without having to call it that - witness the disparity along racial lines for those locked up for drug offenses.
3) The amount of money spent by law enforcement for heavy artillery is paid for in part by drug seizures.
4) Only Obama can use drugs and handle them, the rest of us are retards and can't.
5) Smoking is bad for you, unless it's tobacco, and then it's good for you.
6) People who smoke pot are demotivated, and society would come crashing down if people started smoking legally what they smoke now illegally.
7) There would be a massive wealth transfer from North America to South America as we buy their drugs.
8) Congresspeople would have to admit that they were wrong about something.

Am I missing anything?

917 Dales  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:00:30am

I am pro-legalization. I get all the arguments about how drugs are bad and so forth, but the costs of the war against weed do not justify the claimed benefits (and if those benefits are actually being realized is debatable).

918 Dales  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:02:37am
What are the arguments for keeping it illegal?
1) Allows the US to send our military wherever we want for anti-drug ops.
2) Allows for racial profiling without having to call it that - witness the disparity along racial lines for those locked up for drug offenses.
3) The amount of money spent by law enforcement for heavy artillery is paid for in part by drug seizures.
4) Only Obama can use drugs and handle them, the rest of us are retards and can't.
5) Smoking is bad for you, unless it's tobacco, and then it's good for you.
6) People who smoke pot are demotivated, and society would come crashing down if people started smoking legally what they smoke now illegally.
7) There would be a massive wealth transfer from North America to South America as we buy their drugs.
8) Congresspeople would have to admit that they were wrong about something.

Am I missing anything?

Yes. You are missing examples of anyone actually making or believing those arguments.

The pro-legalization side, of which I am a part, will not succeed by constructing strawmen or by accusing our fellow countrymen of the most nefarious of motivations.

919 tyree  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:07:01am

re: #629 SpaceJesus

Your reply doesn't answer the question. Why should we reward anti-social behavior?

920 tyree  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:08:29am

re: #637 Bagua

Really? Buying illicit drugs from a cartel pusher doesn't enable criminals?

921 alkmyst  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:12:01am

Putting anything in your body without knowing what the effects will be makes you stupid.

I got diagnosed in college with ADHD. Doc pushed me Prozac, I told him I ain't takin an anti-depressant if I ain't depressed, especially one with a listed side effect of, wait for it... Depression. Oh, and decreased libido and decreased ability to enjoy sex when ya do have it.

Haven't trusted a doctor since.


Don't be ignint.

And for the record, I didn't smoke weed til I was 17, but had a great time when I did. Don't anymore cuz I know how I get, I totally support anyone's right to do so if they want to, I'd just rather be productive. And I would never buy Hashish in Israel because hash cash embiggens the rash of Hezbullah trash. Think Global, Act Local, isn't that how it goes?

922 Yashmak  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:16:24am

re: #904 taxfreekiller

Its not like the f'n country is not falling apart now, just do drugs all day and make it legal, thats the ticket?

STUPID

The point is, the people are already using marijuana. The federal expenditure of billions hasn't proven at all effective at reducing its use. 12 states have already decriminalized its use in some situations. As far as I can tell, it's more easily available than it has ever been.

To me, it all comes down to wasting money for no return on investment. Ten billion dollars may not seem like much, given the figures being spent by our current administration on a weekly basis. . .but cuts have to start somewhere. I'd far rather see cuts to federal spending combating marijuana use than, say, cuts to education programs.

923 Simply Me  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:31:08am

re: #713 Alberta Oil Peon

1) I guarantee you, that if your daughter goes to a public school or college, she will have pot available to her from somebody in her circle of acquaintances. She will be well aware that the risk of being arrested for it is minute. The best way to ensure she doesn't begin smoking pot is to simply let her know that she can simply say "no thanks" without being obliged to defend that choice to her friends. If they are true friends, they will respect that choice. If they won't respect that choice, then they are people with whom she should not associate.

2) I quite often go to parties where a joint is passed around. I simply take it, and pass it on to the next person without taking a drag. Perfectly acceptable behavior. If anyone is crass enough to insist that I try it, I'll say (truthfully) "I have tried it; it never did much for me, aside of make me cough. And I work in an industry where, in theory at least, I'm subject to a random piss test. Do I really want to smoke a weed that I don't enjoy very much, and risk losing a well-paid job?"

I go to the bar, and get people offering me shooters made with Sambucca. I can't stand that stuff. Simply smelling it is enough to make feel like puking. But it's legal. But I'm still not going to drink it.

Hi Alberta Oil Peon,

Thank you for your responses.

Regarding 1.), I know that pot is available to my daughter. (We live in Berkeley!) But now it is stigmatized as what the dopers do. My concern is that if pot is legalized, it will be harder to resist the peer pressure. She is in a crowd that doesn't do pot. And she just got in to an excellent liberal arts college. (The kids who do pot are going to UC Santa Cruz.)

Regarding 2.), there is no way I want to go to parties where people are smoking dope. The older I get, the more I am interested in healthy foods and a healthy lifestyle and being around people who share those values.

924 odorlesspaintthinner  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:34:59am

If you want to legalize marijuana because of unenforceability, that's one thing. But let's stop underestimating the effects. Be honest and then go about what makes sense for the country. To me, the "gateway drug" and "same as beer" arguments are irrelevant. Let's look at it for itself.

-Marijuana is not this benign thing. It can take a productive and intelligent person and turn them into an undisciplined slob. I say this from personal experience, as well as seeing its effects on others. Saying "alcohol does the same thing" is not an argument, it's a cop out. Having more options to get stoned doesn't make for a better society.

-I see articles about the cancer risk being greater than cigarettes or nonexistent. I don't know which are true, but I assume that burning anything then inhaling is going to cause health problems.

-The same arguments for legalizing marijuana can be used for legalizing other drugs. If it keeps money out of the hands of drug cartels and gang-bangers and provides tax revenue, well so would legalizing anything else people will pay for, including cocaine, crystal meth and heroin.

-We all fear being labelled hypocrites because we tried it, or because we drank alcohol or smoked cigarettes. This is that same useless moral paralysis that we despise in the political arena: Well, we supported the Shah so we need to leave Iran alone. We had slavery so who are we to preach? Who are we to be the world police? Who are we to stop someone beating his kids, it's his home, why are we so great? Past mistakes should not be our excuse for doing the wrong thing.

925 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:48:50am

re: #51 Charles

One thing I know for a fact -- alcohol takes a much higher toll on people's lives than marijuana ever has.

Yikes! Been there done that too... Prohibition...

There was a time when Puritans were more sincere about their beliefs, at least to the point of more-or-less adhering to them personally. Now it's just morality for thee but not for me. Some high-profile proponents of abstinence have pregnant teenage daughters. In small-town Nebraska, the kids going to Catholic school (from the most socially conservative families) were the hardest-core junkies and greater sluts of them all.

Instead of outright prohibition, we get a ridiculous legal drinking age.

Why limit the legalization of drugs to pot though? What about the other more colorful ones? Should the argument be "Well, pot is harmless but crack isn't," or "I have a right to do whatever I want to my body so long as it doesn't directly affect others"?

926 charles_martel  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:04:33am

The people who have demonized weed have been the alcohol and tobacco lobby. Both alcohol and tobacco are genuinely addictive drugs, but weed is NOT addictive. Yet alcohol and tobacco are legal and weed is not. Why? The alcohol and tobacco lobby! It's all about money, not morality.

Legalize weed now!

927 Abdul Abulbul Amir  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:07:57am

Don't count the tax dollars on legal MJ too soon. The stuff is too easy for anyone to grow to support a large tax. Moonshining by contrast requires special equipment, and experienced labor. Those barriers to entry don't exist at the same level for MJ.

928 Achilles Tang  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:08:06am

re: #919 tyree

Your reply doesn't answer the question. Why should we reward anti-social behavior?

Your concept of what constitutes antisocial, to the point of being sociopaths, makes your entire argument kind of stupid. You might as well apply the same logic to driving 10 miles over the speed limit, and be sentenced to jail instead of fined.

929 Colonel Panik  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:09:23am

#921 alkmyst

And I would never buy Hashish in Israel because hash cash embiggens the rash of Hezbullah trash.


That made my morning. Very funny.

930 ducktrapper  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:10:32am

Isn't it legal already? As a Canadian, I'm for it.

931 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:11:08am

re: #129 m1150

113 charles:

No I'm quite sane and have spent a great deal of my life studying youth alcohol policy. I'm firmly convinced youth prohibition has led to all of the problems of general prohibition in the 20s and that the best way to avoid alcohol problems is to gradually introduce young people to alcohol in a non-glorified, non-forbidden fruit way from a young age, as is done in Southern European cultures with very low rates of alcoholism.

Are you a hypocrite?

I'm a Southern European. In my home country, Albania, drinking age is only a suggestion. I remember dad sending my seven-year old sister down to the grocery kiosk around the corner to buy a two-liter bottle of beer (they're sold in that format for family consumption). It's not a big deal.

That doesn't mean my seven year old sister guzzled down the beer with the rest of the adults at the table. Teenagers are introduced to alcohol at the table, where they are allowed to drink a small glass of beer or wine with a meal. That too is done under parental supervision. I don't know where you get the idea that Sothern European cultures introduce alcohol consumption at a very early age, because it's simply not true.

932 SFGoth  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:12:10am

re: #832 zombie

I'm sick and tired of people who say heroin should be illegal and then make all kinds of excuses for marijuana.

Me too.

933 charles_martel  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:17:56am

re: #932 SFGoth

You honestly don't see a difference between weed and heroin?

934 SFGoth  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:19:12am

re: #890 EvilDave3

Interstate Commerce.

I don't know why the judge threw him out (I assume jury nullification, judges hate that).

But under post-New Deal Constitutional interpretation anything that can possibly maybe kind of be traded interstate (as an industry, not your joint), falls under Congresses big regulation of Interstate Commerce clause.

Yeah, ironically, Libs have Big Guv to blame for the federal ban on weed (sched I).

935 Sheepdogess  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:21:57am

re: #924 odorlesspaintthinner

We all fear being labelled hypocrites because we tried it, or because we drank alcohol or smoked cigarettes. .


Spot on.
I have a friend who's son, 19 at the time, was involved in a DWI in which FIVE TEENAGERS were killed. He walked away without a scratch. He went to jail, IIRC, for only 4 years. He has since then married, had a family and is doing quite well. I had a discussion with his mom, moonbatius enormous, a couple of years ago on why I would lecture my kids on the evils of drug use. She asked how I could do that because I had smoked pot in my younger days. She called me a hypocrite. I asked her very sincerely, If she thought her son had thought it appropriate to lecture his children on the evils of drinking and driving. She left in tears, I had apparently hurt her feelings.

936 Achilles Tang  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:22:00am

re: #932 SFGoth

As to harder drugs, how about setting up clinics where people can register as addicts and have access to treatment options but also get a low cost fix then and there (no take out) if that is what they want?

That way they don't have to waste time stealing something, selling it and then finding a supplier. Seems to me that would be a lot cheaper and potentially more beneficial to society than what we have now, which doesn't work and never will.

937 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:23:38am

re: #341 Thanos

Actually there are many paths to ersatz sense of accomplishment, should we outlaw World of Warcraft too?

What about masturbation? Anybody?

938 SFGoth  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:28:42am

re: #933 charles_martel

You honestly don't see a difference between weed and heroin?

I do, but if someone wants to take the position that "you're hypocritical if it's not all-or-nothing", I take all. Not that I do all, but I'll take the all position. Societally, alcohol is probably the most pernicious drug out there. The prohibition on cannabis is primarily cultural. Good ol' boys drink. OTOH, I'd love for each pro-criminalization politician, sheriff, etc., to pledge that they'll commit suicide if they are ever found to use marijuana, for any purpose, like pain relief when they come down with Parkinson's or something like that.

939 gander  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:37:00am

I stopped, I would rather that my kids didn't, but...
Otherwise decent people are put on the wrong side of the law!

940 _RememberTonyC  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:37:26am

if it were legal, the price of producing it would drop dramatically, but stoners would pay any amount of tax the government wanted to attach.

So if a pack of cigarettes costs 8-10 bucks, a pack of 20 blunts could cost 50 bucks, with 40 of it going to the government in tax revenue with the producers still making a large profit.

our budget would be balanced, and Doritos stock would go through the roof!

941 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:42:10am

re: #685 zombie

So, by that argument, by what rationale do you make any drug or behavior or "victimless crime" illegal?

Why do we make heroin illegal? Why do we make prostitution illegal (in most jurisdictions)? Why do we make littering illegal? Etc.? Everyone should just be totally free to do whatever they want at all times.

Yes they should. All these aforementioned activities SHOULD be legal.

942 Land Shark  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:42:44am

I think it's a matter of priorities, weed, while not harmless, is not as dangerous to your health or society as cocaine, meth or heroin. I believe legalization and taxation of marijuana will free up substantial resources, including jail space, for use against the more dangerous drugs. Many of these resources can be better used clamping down on intoxicated drivers as well. And the taxes from Marijuana would be an extra source of revenue without raising other taxes.

To see it as a legalize them all or none at all is simply not realistic. It's not a perfect solution, but one that makes more sense than the current status quo to me.

943 StillAMarine  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:43:38am

Yes, weed has its bad side in that it can ruin the life of the user, has a negative effect on health and lifespan, and perhaps makes it easier for the user to start on more hard core drugs. However, if the user is aware of these facts, I see no reason why they should be banned from their recreation.
The problem with weed is that it not only affects the users themselves, but people around them, as do alcohol and cigarettes. That would be the only reason I can see to ban the product. On the other hand, the prohibition on grass just adds to the bad effects both on the user, with its risk of jail time and a record, and on all of us, with prisons crowded with weed users who have no other sins that could get them there, along with the accompanying waste of police resources. So it just might be beneficial to end the ban.
Truth be told, I do not know. Reading these comments have given me some insight, though, and now I am not ready to strongly oppose removing the ban without more consideration.

944 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:43:41am

re: #941 medaura18586

Yes they should. All these aforementioned activities SHOULD be legal.

Except for littering.

945 charles_martel  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:47:56am

re: #938 SFGoth

Well, I guess I'm with you then. But those who insist that it's hypocritical to ban one and not the other are simply wrong. There is a big difference between weed and harder drugs, and I there is nothing wrong with making a distinction, legalizing one and not the other. Those who would criticize that are simply speaking from ignorance.

946 Ayeless in Ghazi  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:48:08am

re: #328 zombie

It's true that some people are affected in that way, but curiously it always seems to be those who smoke pot AND come from a loser culture in the first place. For example, the people I know from university who smoked pot are now successful individuals even though they still smoke it, whereas the people I knew from the dependency-culture-dominated housing estates who smoked pot are in essentially the same place today that they were then, or worse.

947 teleskiguy  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:48:32am

re: #860 Slumbering Behemoth

can't seem to find the shirt.


I saw a kid in Boulder at a Greyboy Allstars concert wearing a shirt that said "Sour Diesel." They do exist!

948 mjwsatx  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:50:13am

My 18 year-old son is currently in a school/rehab facility and has been for the last year because he was addicted to marijuana. I have since become educated about pot and I can tell you the following things:

1. Pot is no longer the harmless weed that some of you might have grown in your backyard and toked while in high school. It is an engineered product that gives you a major high - especially hydroponic pot.

2. Pot is a drug and it is addictive - perhaps not physically addictive but psychologically so.

3. Pot a a gateway drug - especially when people start smoking at ages younger than 25 because pot triggers the pleasure center in their brains and makes those people much more susceptible to having addictive personalities.

4. Smoking marijuana is bad for your health. Certain kinds of pot have heavy concentrations of mercury - and that ain't good for you.

5. If we legalize pot for adults I can guarantee you that more kids will smoke it. My son also smoked cigarettes - and these were illegal for him to buy, but very easy for him to get.

That being said the problem really lies with each individual and their ability to control their choices. I am sure that lots of adults smoke pot occasionally and responsibly and if they want to escape reality and harm their health by doing so that is their choice. What concerns me about legalizing pot is that I know more kids will smoke and that is both bad for them and bad for all of us. We do need to put more people in treatment centers (only long-term works) and less people in jail for drug use, but if people steal to support their pot and drug habits (my son stole) they really belong in jail. I would be in favor of a system of mandatory drug testing for all kids under 18 and special schools, treatment centers and staff-secured rehabilitation facilities for repeat offenders. Of course this would never get past the ACLU. So we end up with criminalization and jail as the solution.

Having said all that I might be in favor of decriminalizing pot for adult use but keeping it a crime to sell it to anyone below the age of 25. The all-knowing Penn Gilette's wonderful argument "let's legalize pot because everyone's doing it" is one hell of a way to determine what should and should not be legal and what's good and what's not for our society. He may not have ever smoked pot, but he sure reasons like a pot-head.

949 Nemesis6  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:53:55am

Maybe if it was made legal, people wouldn't be beaten to death by bat-wielding pushers here. It used to be kind of ignored where I live; outside what's called the freetown of Christiania. The cops raided the place some years ago and prohibited all selling of drugs, even though it was primarily light drugs being sold there. Now what has happened is that rival immigrant gangs and a biker-subculture with criminal ties (they're known as Rockers here) fight each other and innocent people have been killed in the resulting fray. Now the shootings and killings have spread and the police have been called in to restore order to the streets. What's actually started happening is that the immigrant gangs have started frisking and searching ordinary people on the street, fearing that they're part of a rival gang. The police, being the incompetent dumbasses that they are, have now largely left now, staging the occasional raid every once in a while.

950 Smorgasbord  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:05:32am

To explain my feelings on the subject, let's pretend I am King of my kingdom. What I say is law. I would ask a small area in my kingdom to VOLUNTEER for a test. They could use ANY drug they wanted, and get them at the pharmacy, but they wouldn't be allowed to drive, fly, run machinery, etc. Employers would be allowed to have a NOW DRUGS policy and test anyone anytime on company time. This way the employee is paid for the time and doesn't lose anything. The individual decides for themselves if they want a regular life or one hooked on pot.

Pot was thought to be harmless based on a test done with pilots. They flew a simulator, smoked a joint, them flew the simulator again with no problems. Later it was found out pot takes time to have an effect on people. Another test was done. The pilots flew the simulator, smoked pot, and waited two hours. Some of the pilots missed the center of the runway by 100 feet when landing. That's good enough for me.

951 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:25:43am

re: #948 mjwsatx

Pot is a drug and it is addictive - perhaps not physically addictive but psychologically so.


That's a pretty ridiculous statement. It's like saying a cheeseburger is psychologically addictive. Or a milkshake. Marijuana is no more psychologically addictive than any other thing you put into your body. THC is a fairly tame psychoactive substance -- it is no more dangerous to abuse than alcohol and arguably less so.

There are a number of benefits I can see from the legalization of marijuana. First and foremost is the fact that legalization would severely change the marketplace. The marijuana black market would drastically shrink within a very short timeframe. Secondly, marijuana could be taxed along the same lines as tobacco, generating a healthy chunk of revenue for the government. It would also provide a form of economic stimulus as marijuana is a fairly easy crop to grow. Cheap domestic marijuana production would help to deter the smuggling of the crop from Mexico into this country. Last but certainly not least would be the removal of the marijuana stigma. With marijuana legalized it would be seen as less rebellious and more mainstream. It's only a "gateway drug" (A stupid phrase if I've ever heard one...) because it's just as illegal as truly hard drugs like heroine, cocaine, LSD and so forth.

In any case, legalizing marijuana would be a net positive in my opinion.

952 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:28:43am

If people want to fund drug cartels and risk going to jail for something as trivial as getting high, I say toss their ass in jail and give them a Darwin Award.

953 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:35:14am

re: #952 Basho
Nobody goes to jail for buying trivial amounts of marijuana in California. It's just a fine. The real penalties come for driving while under the influence of marijuana. It's treated the same as an alcohol-related DUI -- as it should be.

954 Sheepdogess  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:44:23am

re: #857 teleskiguy

Just what America needs, more stoned, laid back, unproductive ski bums. Oy.

955 useless  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:51:44am

Why stop with just pot? Make all drugs legal.

However, the fist time you commit a crime while under the influence of your new freedom or you commit a crime to get your drugs, then you go to prison for life.

I would prefer to execute drug addicts, but I would run out of bullets.

956 Capitalist Tool  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:51:57am

All I know is, I saw a commercial on TV that showed what your brain looks like on drugs.
Looked just like fried eggs.

957 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:56:44am

re: #953 hebrewtoyou

California has different laws, which is fine. Nobody has a right to break the law though, especially for something so pointless. If their lives will become so much better with pot legalized they should try to change the laws first.

958 Land Shark  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:00:11am

re: #948 mjwsatx

The idea that pot is THE gateway drug is silly. Everyone I know who smoked pot (including myself when I was young and stupid) started with cigarettes and booze.

959 charles_martel  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:00:36am

re: #956 Capitalist Tool

Actually, your brain looks like eggs over easy, with a dash of cumin and aregano....

960 darvvin  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:10:09am

For you Facebook users:

NORML Conservatives

961 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:16:06am

re: #629 SpaceJesus

because if weed was legal and locally grown, those cartels would no longer exist.

lol
They'd be unemployed and have to become librarians.

962 infopimp  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:16:10am

I have friends that went to Ivy league colleges who are "dealers" of weed on the side. It is all they sell.. and they get it from their friends, who grow it in rural CA.

So having spoken with them, I disagree with the "dealers always sell harder drugs" line, and also I disagree the myth that somewhere in Mexico there are guns pointed at people's heads because of this drug.

I also disagree you could actually tax this. Given the very "grassroots" nature of what I described above, how would you?

963 Drider  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:26:00am

They really ought to make legal marijuana and cocaine.

Oh, and cheap, hot hookers so I may have breasts to snort the cocaine off of and a humidor for my cigar sized joints.

Then I can go home to the wife and have a beer or two.

964 SFGoth  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:26:30am

So, apparently, because some kids steal their parents' beer and get messed up, adults shouldn't be allowed to drink beer.

re: #948 mjwsatx

My 18 year-old son is currently in a school/rehab facility and has been for the last year because he was addicted to stuff in my refrigerator. I have since become educated about beer and I can tell you the following things:

1. beer is no longer the harmless liquid that some of you might have snuck from parents' fridges and chugged while in high school. It is an engineered product that gives you a major drunk - especially malt liquor.

2. Beeris a drug and it is addictive - perhaps not justphysically addictive but psychologically so.

3. Beer a a gateway drug - especially when people start drinking at ages younger than 25 because beer triggers the pleasure center in their brains and makes those people much more susceptible to having addictive personalities.

4. Drinking beer is bad for your health. Certain kinds of beer have heavy concentrations of piss - and that ain't good for you.

5. If we legalize beer for adults I can guarantee you that more kids will drink it. My son also smoked cigarettes - and these were illegal for him to buy, but very easy for him to get. which kinda defeats my message

That being said the problem really lies with each individual and their ability to control their choices. I am sure that lots of adults drink beer occasionally and responsibly and if they want to escape reality and harm their health by doing so that is their choice. What concerns me about legalizing beer is that I know more kids will drink and that is both bad for them and bad for all of us. We do need to put more people in treatment centers (only long-term works) and less people in jail for drug use, but if people steal to support their beer and drug habits (my son stole) they really belong in jail. I would be in favor of a system of mandatory beer testing for all kids under 18 and special schools, treatment centers and staff-secured rehabilitation facilities for repeat offenders. Of course this would never get past the ACLU. So we end up with criminalization and jail as the solution. We should also jail parents who keep beer in their house.

Having said all that I might be in favor of decriminalizing beer for adult use but keeping it a crime to sell it to anyone below the age of 25. The all-knowing Penn Gilette's wonderful argument "let's legalize beer because everyone's doing it" is one hell of a way to determine what should and should not be legal and what's good and what's not for our society. He may not have ever drunk beer, but he sure reasons like a beer-head.

965 Capitalist Tool  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:29:48am

re: #959 charles_martel

Actually, your brain looks like eggs over easy, with a dash of cumin and aregano....

I knew it! Should have quit sooner...

966 Edouard  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:36:33am

The main reason to oppose full legalization, as I see it, regards driving.

Increased accessibility of marijuana will mean more intoxicated drivers and more road fatalities.

Some decriminalization is needed. People should not have their lives turned upside down and destroyed because of growing a few pot plants in their yard. However, restrictions that at least limit accessibility are still needed. Kids who see pot as an adult thing, and who find it suddenly easier to get will drive while intoxicated more.

The above, by the way, is why I continue to favor not lowering the drinking age despite what other countries do.

967 nikis-knight  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:41:48am

Late to the thread. I've never smoked a thing, and in fact all the alcohol I've drank could probably fit in one smallish bottle.
I'm in favor of ending the drug war, too much "collateral damage". But I hope we would also attach drug testing to medicare & other welfare. If you choose to get too stoned to get a job, sleep in a shelter or on a bench with the winos--better than prison for the addict, cheaper for society, and less money to narco-terrorists & smugglers.

As for the arguement about the message it send to children, I think they're already bombarded with terrible messages from the government anyway. Relying on the nanny state to train kids is not going to do much good in any situation.

Heck, I'd be open to decriminalizing the use of some heavier stuff, though actually dealing anything too dangerous should be treated as accessory to manslaughter or something like that. But one step at a time.

968 Edouard  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:46:42am

re: #962 infopimp

...also I disagree the myth that somewhere in Mexico there are guns pointed at people's heads because of this drug.

I also disagree you could actually tax this. Given the very "grassroots" nature of what I described above, how would you?...

In my neck of the woods in CA, a Hispanic worker in an illegal pot field turned up murdered by the side of the road. He apparently wanted to get out of the game. Roughly about the same time, the huge marijuana field on which he evidently worked was discovered and destroyed.

There are some very bad people doing very bad things in the marijuana trade, and they will continue to find ways to do very bad things whether or not marijuana is legal or illegal.

Whatever the legality, I refuse to support such a trade with my dollars and I really wish others would do the same -- just as I choose not to not to support other legal or illegal vice trades (gambling, prostitution) in which bad people get rich.

969 nikis-knight  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:49:44am

I wish there was a way that we could test this, though, like legalize it in some areas and not others, according to the desires of the majority of the people there. But what would we call this strange practice? Fed... federal...federalism... something like that, maybe?

970 SFGoth  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:52:52am

re: #969 nikis-knight

I wish there was a way that we could test this, though, like legalize it in some areas and not others, according to the desires of the majority of the people there. But what would we call this strange practice? Fed... federal...federalism... something like that, maybe?

That's feudalism. We bow to what the Fed Guvmint wants.

971 so.cal.swede  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:53:54am

sorry. you will see exactly $0 of the projected $15 billion tax revenues. People will grow it in their back yards or indoors.

And those $10 bil savings? forget most of it too, we will still spend money to prevent the illegal parts (youths, border wars with drug cartels) of weed.

972 Claire  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:56:06am

re: #900 SixDegrees

If anything, the illegal status of marijuana is more likely to blame for people moving on to harsher illegal drugs. It puts buyers in contact with an unsavory underworld of dealers, and an environment where all sorts of goodies are available. Make it legal, and the users will come in contact with some bald guy at the drugstore.

Excellent argument.

re: #969 nikis-
knight

They've decriminalized it in San Francisco, Amsterdam and Portugal and have not apparently seen an increase in abuse after that. There is some data on that already. People seem to refuse to believe it could possibly be true, however.

973 SFGoth  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 10:59:18am

re: #971 so.cal.swede

sorry. you will see exactly $0 of the projected $15 billion tax revenues. People will grow it in their back yards or indoors.

And those $10 bil savings? forget most of it too, we will still spend money to prevent the illegal parts (youths, border wars with drug cartels) of weed.

That's a pretty flippant, off-the-cuff remark with very little to back it up. Whenever I go to Safeway, I see produce that people can grow in their own backyard. Cannabis is not mold; it does not grow simply by being there. Cannabis cultivation does take a considerable amount of effort for anything beyond ditch weed. Go on line and take a look at how much info there is on growing it - cycles, watering, lighting, nutrients, air-flow; home distilling looks easier. Not that I can tell you from experience, but it sure would seem to be a lot easier to go to a retail place (whether private or gov't run) and buy what you need at that time. Obviously there's a market for retail weed and it's illegal; why would people start growing once it's become legal? That's a cop out attitude.

974 Claire  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:00:00am

re: #971 so.cal.swede

It would save a lot of police time, court time and prison money. 700,000 are arrested and go through the courts each year for pot. 500,000 people are in prison for pot. At $30,000 each per year thats $15 billion a year just for the prison part.

975 so.cal.swede  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:02:28am

re: #973 SFGoth

why would people start growing once it's become legal? That's a cop out attitude.

Weed is pretty easy to grow. There's a reason for it's nickname. California climate is ideal. just add water.

976 so.cal.swede  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:03:21am

re: #974 Claire

It would save a lot of police time, court time and prison money. 700,000 are arrested and go through the courts each year for pot. 500,000 people are in prison for pot. At $30,000 each per year thats $15 billion a year just for the prison part.

if you think that "all costs associated with enforcing marijuana law will disappear if weed is legalised." then you are dangerously naive.

977 so.cal.swede  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:05:22am

re: #964 SFGoth

So, apparently, because some kids steal their parents' beer and get messed up, adults shouldn't be allowed to drink beer.


hahahahahahha. you just lost at the internet.

978 SFGoth  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:05:23am

re: #975 so.cal.swede

Weed is pretty easy to grow. There's a reason for it's nickname. California climate is ideal. just add water.

This silliness is what I mean. It's like me trying to brew beer from Wheaties when I was younger. No, you cannot just chuck some weedseed in the backyard and then start selling high grade white widow. If you were right, there'd be no illegal trade now as it is. What does grow wild easily are psychedelic mushrooms.

979 nikis-knight  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:07:54am

re: #972 Claire

Oh, yeah, I'm not actually looking for data, I'm making a tongue in check comment about the over-expansive reach of the the federal goverenment. Would but I could go back in time and get that commerce clause written a bit tighter...

980 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:07:59am

re: #893 Seax

Time to Legalize Weed?
My opinion - No.
Why? Got a friend who is a big time
user of the 'ol wacky tabbacky' from way back ( 70's)and while he is a nice guy...he is well rather...er...slow
in the brain department( almost yesterday slow ).
And yet another friend who's done so many drugs that I swear
that his brain has been rewired backwards-(not normal - as in way way out over the yonder horizon not normal).A 'functioning' person yes -
but not as we know it Jim! Plays a mean guitar though.
Pisses me off no end at where they could have gone and
could have been if they hadn't started sucking on the dreaded weed.

Yes, all of our laws should be based on your personal anecdotes.

981 Achilles Tang  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:16:57am

re: #893 Seax

Time to Legalize Weed?
My opinion - No.
Why? Got a friend who is a big time
user of the 'ol wacky tabbacky' from way back ( 70's)and while he is a nice guy...he is well rather...er...slow
in the brain department( almost yesterday slow ).
And yet another friend who's done so many drugs that I swear
that his brain has been rewired backwards-(not normal - as in way way out over the yonder horizon not normal).A 'functioning' person yes -
but not as we know it Jim! Plays a mean guitar though.
Pisses me off no end at where they could have gone and
could have been if they hadn't started sucking on the dreaded weed.

I bet you know some slow people who have never smoked even a banana. How do you prove your cause and effect?

982 Achilles Tang  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:18:13am

Hmm. Salem, seems we are reading at the same pace here.

983 charles_martel  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:22:04am

re: #965 Capitalist Tool

yes, but when you die, someone will really enjoy eating your brain! they'll get a nice buzz, too....

984 mjwsatx  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:26:55am

re: #951 hebrewtoyou

my fellow Hebrew,

I don't disagree with most of the benefits to legalization that you list - but you don't list any costs to legalization and there would surely be some big ones. Having more of our teenagers going to school high each and every day will be one of those costs - I can guarantee you that. If you are not a parent that probably doesn't bother you right now - but it will bother the hell out of you when you do become a parent.

As for the addictive qualities of pot - well you just don't understand and neither did I when my son claimed he was addicted and everyone else told me that marijuana is not chemically addictive. Psychological addiction is just as powerful. While cheeseburgers and milkshakes can become psychologically addictive to some, they don't trigger the pleasure center of developing brains the same way that pot does. I would argue that video games also do this to a limited degree and I would encourage parents to watch how their teens interact with their video games and limit time if necessary.

As far as your contention that THC is a "fairly tame psychoactive substance" - I'm sure that I could find lots of teenagers at my son's staff-secured facility who would vehemently dispute that claim. Apparently you haven't been smoking the same stuff that these kids were smoking before they lost control of their lives and their parents sent them far away to a very expensive facility they had never seen to get them the help they need to regain control over their lives and their choices.

Marijuana is not a benign substance. As I said above, adults should have a choice to use pot and that use should be decriminalized, but keeping pot away from our kids is extremely important. And no - legalizing pot will not take away the allure because it will be "mainstream" unless you can also figure out a way to take away the high. That is a ridiculous and stupid argument. Pot is a gateway drug because it gets you high - and I can find you scores of teenagers at my son's school who would swear to that.

chag Pesach sameach.

Mike ///////\///////

985 charles_martel  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:28:24am

re: #975 so.cal.swede

Weed is pretty easy to grow. There's a reason for it's nickname. California climate is ideal. just add water.

Obviously, you've never had homegrown. "Commercial" weed is infinitely better than anything you can grow in your back yard. Also, please tell me why people aren't all brewing beer and distilling alcohol at home instead of walking down to the store?

986 senator  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:29:24am

Think of how much crime would go down if we legalized petty theft! I mean, that way, we could free law enforcement to work with the harder, bigger crimes. And if we made petty theft legal, it would probably keep people from wanting to get into grand larceny. Everyone wins!

987 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:44:26am

re: #915 soxfan4life

The test for driving under the influence will be the sticking point. If there is no way to test for recent use, then there will be a push to eliminate DUI laws by some lunatic fringe. I see a huge upswing in lawsuits and insurance payouts, if someone struck my vehicle, I would ask for a blood test for THC and if present press for charges of driving under the influence.

I don't find marijuana to be anywhere near as incapacitating as alcohol (and millions of people drive legally intoxicated every day without getting in accidents, actually) but it's true you can't test for pot intoxication. Basically, the policy wouldn't change. You can't demand that another free citizen be drug-tested for running into your car (and it would be immaterial, anyway) and I see no rational reason for that to change if marijuana were legal.

988 SFGoth  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 11:48:09am

re: #987 Salem

but it's true you can't test for pot intoxication.

You've never dangled a twinkie in front of someone who's stoned?

No one who's intoxicated, on any substance, should drive. However, we outlaw the act, not necessarily the substance. Next, we'll have people here advocating mandatory sleep so that no one drives tired. People who drive tired are serious dangers. We need to regulate it!

989 AZDave  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:05:34pm

From the looks of it, Penn Jillette has smoked just one too many.

990 Charles Johnson  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:07:00pm

re: #989 AZDave

From the looks of it, Penn Jillette has smoked just one too many.

Watching the video might have been a good idea before making that comment.

Penn Jillette has never smoked dope in his life.

991 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:12:17pm

We all need to dial back the anecdotal evidence a little. Mind you, I'm not totally innocent of it, either, but unless you think everyone should be held to your personal limitations and experiences, it just sounds stupid. Because that works both ways. If every individual were held to every other individual's personal experiences and limitations, I'm sure you'll agree that life for all of us would be intolerably stifling. Logic is okay, but as soon as you say "I'm against legalizing marijuana because my sister-in-law...", for example, you morph into a narrow-minded, intolerant rube who can safely be disregarded by those who are interested in serious debate.

992 Yashmak  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:23:45pm

re: #924 odorlesspaintthinner

-Marijuana is not this benign thing. It can take a productive and intelligent person and turn them into an undisciplined slob. I say this from personal experience, as well as seeing its effects on others. Saying "alcohol does the same thing" is not an argument, it's a cop out. Having more options to get stoned doesn't make for a better society.

As an ex-daily user myself, I say from personal experience that marijuana doesn't turn anyone into anything. It didn't stop me from getting an engineering degree, and didn't stop me from attaining a string of promotions at my early employers' in my field. The person turns his/herself into an undisciplined slob by ALLOWING marijuana to take control. What you've said here is not far off blaming the gun for a murder in which it was used as the instrument.

More options to get stoned? Heh, I haven't used the stuff since since a year or two after college, and as it is now, I know of almost as many people I could get some from, as I do of convenience stores where I can buy cigarrettes in this town.

993 Yashmak  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:25:58pm

re: #991 Salem

We all need to dial back the anecdotal evidence a little.

Heh, I didn't read your comment before posting mine. . .which is rather anecdotal.

994 [deleted]  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:30:03pm
995 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:40:26pm

re: #990 Charles

Watching the video might have been a good idea before making that comment.

Penn Jillette has never smoked dope in his life.

That's me too. He claims to have never tasted alcohol either. That's more than I can say for myself, though I've always been a feather-light drinker. But I've never smoked not only dope, but even regular cigarettes. That crap has never touched my lips.

Nevertheless, I'll stand firmly in support of anyone's right to consume whatever substances they wish, and I won't interfere with their recreational habits unless and until they are directly (no wishy-washy "dead weight to society" crap) affecting someone else.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. "Conservatives" don't see a problem with that argument.

But were I to say "pot doesn't cause driving accidents; people, with their reckless decisions do, and should be held individually accountable" the bullshit begins. I'm tired of the utilitarian arguments: how damaging is a substance to the brain relative to alcohol, our standard bearer, what the gains to society would be if it were banned, etc.

Liberty is an ideal to be pursued in its own right, so long as actions' consequences are isolated to their perpetrator. If the right to bear arms until/unless I hurt someone else is sacred, then so is the right to reserve to myself the prerogative of self-intoxication. Having that right doesn't mean you must exercise it, but have it you must. It's no one else's business to tell an adult what to ingest.

996 charles_martel  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:40:34pm

re: #994 taxfreekiller

Fine, then outlaw alcohol. Because alcochol is more dangerous than weed, by way of higher car accident rate, it is more addictive than weed, and ruins many more lives. If you are going to use that argument, than you should be advocating the prohibition of alcohol.

997 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 12:49:21pm

re: #993 Yashmak

Heh, I didn't read your comment before posting mine. . .which is rather anecdotal.

Well, you also don't advocate limiting anyone's rights based on your personal experience. Besides, it's asking too much to eliminate it altogether. Speaking strictly outside of personal experience is pretty tricky and not very amicable to wide-ranging and interesting discussions on a casual forum such as this. Habits such as throwing around statistics without context also add to the clutter. My ideal for a topic like this would be that people rely on logic and just generally give individuals credit for being able to run their own lives as long as it doesn't bring ruin on others.

998 tyree  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:03:18pm

re: #928 Naso Tang

If driving 10 miles over the speed limit led to soldiers being beheaded in Mexico, you would have a point. Since it doesn't, then driving 10 miles over the speed limit is wrong, but not in the same way as knowingly funneling money to drug cartels. When the drug users in the US stop taking drugs for 4 years to drive the cartels out of business, I will be the first person to say the have earned the right to legalized drugs. Until then, sociopathic behavior should not be rewarded with legalization. Does anyone actually support sociopaths, and why?

999 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:05:33pm

re: #971 so.cal.swede

People will grow it in their back yards or indoors.


Why in blue blazes would most people do that? Most marijuana smokers do not grow their own stuff now. And it's not because it's illegal! In fact, most people who have cannabis club cards here in California do not grow their own weed despite being allowed to do so. It's much easier -- and ultimately cheaper -- to buy great weed from a club. One of their biggest cash-cows are edibles.

re: #984 mjwsatx

Apparently you haven't been smoking the same stuff that these kids were smoking before they lost control of their lives and their parents sent them far away to a very expensive facility they had never seen to get them the help they need to regain control over their lives and their choices.


I'm in my mid-twenties and attended UC Santa Cruz for my undergraduate engineering degree. Please trust me when I say that not only have I smoked the same stuff, I've likely smoked much, much more potent stuff. I smoked constantly from 18 years old until about a year ago. I stopped on a DIME. No withdrawal, no addiction, no nothing. It wasn't a big deal because marijuana isn't addictive.

I'm sorry if your son has had problems with drug abuse, but I'm pretty sure that marijuana isn't the root cause of the problems. If it wasn't weed it would have been something else. I'm not trying to be rude or to make assumptions, but some of the statements you have absolutely prompted this response.

keeping pot away from our kids is extremely important


And such is the case for alcohol, which is also legalized but regulated by the government. The best we can do is hope for good parenting and strong enforcement of the law. But to ban the substance completely because of the cries of Mrs. Lovejoy (The Simpsons reference: Won't somebody think of the children!) is just silly.

Legalized marijuana is not something to fear.
re: #992 Yashmak

Yashmak, funny how similar our situations and experience are. ;)

1000 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:07:37pm

re: #952 Basho

If people want to fund drug cartels and risk going to jail for something as trivial as getting high, I say toss their ass in jail and give them a Darwin Award.

re: #955 useless

Why stop with just pot? Make all drugs legal.

However, the fist time you commit a crime while under the influence of your new freedom or you commit a crime to get your drugs, then you go to prison for life.

I would prefer to execute drug addicts, but I would run out of bullets.

Okay, well you two are obviously unstable. Anything else?

1001 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:14:05pm

re: #1000 Salem

Okay, well you two are obviously unstable. Anything else?

I missed those (only skimmed through this post). Pretty crazy!

1002 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:14:42pm

I have to reject the societal impact arguments so many folks here are making. Everything has a societal impact, whether you're conscious of it or not. What must be weighed is the cost trade off between liberty and the functioning of society, with negative impacts being considered as inevitable and part of the trade off. Does our society respect the liberty of the individual in this case? I don't think so. Is the illegality of marijuana harming our society. I think it does. It's creating a criminal class of otherwise law abiding citizens.

So the trade off in this case would be more personal liberty while accepting that portions of the population will abuse the substance, which we already have with other substances. It's part of human nature, a part that will never be corrected. We are flawed, therefore we should accept the flawed nature and yet do right as possible by society and liberty. I think it's a detriment to society to waste resources fighting this issue. The war on drugs is a quagmire and we are hurting segments of our population that are otherwise decent people. The trade off in the status quo is is more of a detriment than the trade off in changing this policy.

1003 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:15:05pm

re: #963 Drider

They really ought to make legal marijuana and cocaine.

Oh, and cheap, hot hookers so I may have breasts to snort the cocaine off of and a humidor for my cigar sized joints.

LOL! Okay, I have no problem with that. Of course there are people who do that right now without them being legal. If you're a rapper I think you are required to.

1004 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:16:01pm

re: #998 tyree

Gee- one way to stop funneling money to the cartels would be to legalize it. Not the other way around.

1005 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:16:23pm

re: #1002 Sharmuta

Good post.

1006 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:17:47pm

re: #1004 Sharmuta

one way to stop funneling money to the cartels would be to legalize it. Not the other way around.


Exactly! The reason the cartels exist is because they're not being punished by Mexico for growing marijuana. If US citizens could grow their own weed and if US corporations could market it this wouldn't be a problem. Do you see many people buying black-market alcohol?

I sure don't...

1007 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:17:49pm

re: #1001 medaura18586

I missed those (only skimmed through this post). Pretty crazy!

Yeah, there have been quite a few surprising revelations on this thread.

1008 Achilles Tang  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:21:03pm

re: #998 tyree

If driving 10 miles over the speed limit led to soldiers being beheaded in Mexico, you would have a point. Since it doesn't, then driving 10 miles over the speed limit is wrong, but not in the same way as knowingly funneling money to drug cartels. When the drug users in the US stop taking drugs for 4 years to drive the cartels out of business, I will be the first person to say the have earned the right to legalized drugs. Until then, sociopathic behavior should not be rewarded with legalization. Does anyone actually support sociopaths, and why?

I say again, your use of the word sociopath in this context makes your argument void and your reasoning trivial.

People don't act on the basis of reasoning consequences past the effect on themselves to the degree that you suggest. One can easily argue that speeding increases the likelihood of killing someone by a significant margin, which it does, and therefore speeding should be considered manslaughter in the second degree.

The quickest way to deal with the cartels is to take over their business. We will never be able to destroy it; that is a fact.

1009 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:24:44pm

re: #1006 hebrewtoyou

Exactly! The reason the cartels exist is because they're not being punished by Mexico for growing marijuana. If US citizens could grow their own weed and if US corporations could market it this wouldn't be a problem. Do you see many people buying black-market alcohol?

I sure don't...

Pot-farming protectionism won't be needed to hurt the cartels. If marijuana were legalized, the cartels would cease to be "cartels" by definition: i.e. their oligopolistic advantage would evaporate. They would merely be another provider out of many. Price takers.

I predict there would be great advances in squashing crime and illiteracy rates among poor urban minority youths too. Once the prospects of dropping out of high school to be a violent pusher/dealer no longer represent a lucrative career choice, I think many more will stick with legitimate educational pursuits.

Illegality creates an underclass, not only of consumers, but also of providers. Both are hurt.

Legalize drugs now!

1010 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:29:00pm

re: #1009 medaura18586

Legalize drugs now!


Errr, well, I'm only in favor of legalizing marijuana to be perfectly honest.

But that's just me. I think there might be an argument to be made for psilocybin mushrooms, but there is a lot of potential downside in legalizing cocaine, heroine, MDMA (ecstacy), LSD and other really dangerous drugs.

Just my $0.02

1011 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:31:27pm

re: #971 so.cal.swede

sorry. you will see exactly $0 of the projected $15 billion tax revenues. People will grow it in their back yards or indoors.

And those $10 bil savings? forget most of it too, we will still spend money to prevent the illegal parts (youths, border wars with drug cartels) of weed.

Most people don't grow all their food outside or keep their own cows or chickens or distill their own alcohol, so why would weed be any different?

1012 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:37:37pm

re: #1011 Salem

Most people don't grow all their food outside or keep their own cows or chickens or distill their own alcohol, so why would weed be any different?

Don't make yourself what you can buy for less than it would cost you to make it. The basics of economics, the foundation of mutually beneficial trade. Most people don't sow their own clothes either.

1013 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:38:15pm

re: #1000 Salem

Okay, well you two are obviously unstable. Anything else?

lol
Why would anyone risk going to jail to get high? That's as irrational as one can get. If they get stuck in prison I say that's just natural selection at work.

1014 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:41:49pm

re: #986 senator

Think of how much crime would go down if we legalized petty theft! I mean, that way, we could free law enforcement to work with the harder, bigger crimes. And if we made petty theft legal, it would probably keep people from wanting to get into grand larceny. Everyone wins!

Why not? The government just stole a trillion dollars from us.

1015 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:45:27pm

re: #1010 hebrewtoyou

Errr, well, I'm only in favor of legalizing marijuana to be perfectly honest.

But that's just me. I think there might be an argument to be made for psilocybin mushrooms, but there is a lot of potential downside in legalizing cocaine, heroine, MDMA (ecstacy), LSD and other really dangerous drugs.

Just my $0.02

Well, your argument seems to be "weed is harmless, why not make it legal." Mine always boils down to "I don't care whether is harmless or not to you; if you wanna do it and it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg, go for it."

That's why I don't differentiate at all between tobacco, alcohol, pot, shrooms, crack, acid, or what-have-you. I know they are all harmful, bu the way, which is why I've never touched any of it (with the exceptional glass of wine or shot of Irish Baily, once in a blue moon).

We come at it from different perspectives.

1016 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:46:06pm

re: #1013 Basho

lol
Why would anyone risk going to jail to get high? That's as irrational as one can get. If they get stuck in prison I say that's just natural selection at work.

How sad. You seem like someone who would benefit from a few tokes.

1017 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:47:47pm

re: #1015 medaura18586

I PIMFED allover myself there. But you get the idea.

1018 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:49:57pm

re: #988 SFGoth

You've never dangled a twinkie in front of someone who's stoned?

This is why we must ban twinkies. And anyone caught eating one should be strapped to the yard-arm and be given forty lashes with a cat-o-nine-tails and thrown to the dog-fishes. R!

1019 charles_martel  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:50:54pm

OK. Not only should we legalize pot, but we should make it mandatory. That way, all the Jihadists would be so stoned, they would just watch TV and go to sleep.

1020 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:52:11pm

re: #1016 Salem

How sad. You seem like someone who would benefit from a few tokes.

I'd rather do shrooms or LSD, at least those give you crazy hallucinations that might inspire something. I don't see the social benefits of finding Shaquille O' Neal movies funny...

1021 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:57:14pm

re: #1009 medaura18586

I predict there would be great advances in squashing crime and illiteracy rates among poor urban minority youths too. Once the prospects of dropping out of high school to be a violent pusher/dealer no longer represent a lucrative career choice, I think many more will stick with legitimate educational pursuits.

This is a great point. The black market for drugs creates job opportunities, that were it not there, would spur incentives to get real jobs.

1022 hebrewtoyou  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 2:00:24pm

re: #1015 medaura18586

Well, your argument seems to be "weed is harmless, why not make it legal." Mine always boils down to "I don't care whether is harmless or not to you; if you wanna do it and it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg, go for it."


Well, I'd never say weed is harmless, but it's certainly not as harmful as other LEGAL forms of intoxication. I think your point of view is absolutely valid; I've just seen far too many people ruin their lives through abusing hard drugs. I've never seen anyone ruin their lives simply from smoking marijuana.

That said, I mostly agree with your "...as long as it doesn't harm me" approach for the most part.

1023 teleskiguy  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 2:03:00pm

re: #954 Sheepdogess

Just what America needs, more stoned, laid back, unproductive ski bums. Oy.

Jeez, you're quick to judge! FYI, I have a degree in English, write for two (albeit very small, but viable) publications and have held down the same job for 7 years. Ski bums can be very productive! Just provide some incentive, ie Being Able to Ski Everyday, and you'll get the ski bum to work and work hard, regardless of intoxication or social/economic status.

1024 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 2:04:39pm

re: #1020 Basho

I'd rather do shrooms or LSD, at least those give you crazy hallucinations that might inspire something. I don't see the social benefits of finding Shaquille O' Neal movies funny...

Well, how do you feel about Twinkies?

Seriously, though, is there a personal reason you feel so strongly about the marijuana issue in particular, just out of curiosity? I mean there has to be a reason you have such disregard for people who smoke it, right? And what things do you enjoy that people could make an argument for eradicating?

1025 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 2:05:41pm

re: #1021 Sharmuta

This is a great point. The black market for drugs creates job opportunities, that were it not there, would spur incentives to get real jobs.

It's a vicious cycle too, as it particularly affects urban (especially minority) youths. I remember watching this documentary about the achievement gap in this fancy school. I forgot where it was, but it's the first integrated school after segregation (modern American history is cloudy in my head).

It was horrible to watch the attitude of many of the black male students, who needed security to keep them in school. Many would drop out, or talk about dropping out to pursue a pusher's career. I mean they openly talked about it! They came from slums, with absent fathers who were often involved in drug dealing themselves. It was heartbreaking, and seemed like a hopeless situation.

As I watched though, it dawned on me that the one exogenous factor to be thrown into the mix, would be legalizing drugs. Then their distribution would no longer be a little teenage thug's specialty. It would be regulated by market forces just like any other industry: safe, sanitized, with no shooting sprees involved. Those kids would know their only chance at making it in life would be to turn into productive citizens.

Thuggery shouldn't be profitable. While we're at it, of course, let's legalize prostitution too, and I am confident I won't have to swear that I've never whored myself out to establish my bona fides on this issue.

1026 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 2:10:02pm

re: #994 taxfreekiller

Not narrow-minded, not a rube, not personal with me, do not care about personal experiences or others limitations.

When your society in general is going down hill and it is clear ours is,
why push it faster down slope. In fact its my opinion the self interest is via those who use, have used, will use , condone use, or in general do not like rules of an ordered society.

Just because man kind is weak does not mean that needs enabling at all.

Hard to be half/ass-ed on such as this and win as a society IMO, just more undisciplined self indulgent behavior.

Well, I've always felt safe disregarding you, TFK. If you weren't utterly incomprehensible most of the time I might feel different.

1027 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 2:14:35pm

re: #1024 Salem

Seriously, though, is there a personal reason you feel so strongly about the marijuana issue in particular, just out of curiosity? I mean there has to be a reason you have such disregard for people who smoke it, right? And what things do you enjoy that people could make an argument for eradicating?

The LSD thing was a joke, I don't want that legalized either. Anyway, I have my personal reasons, but as has been pointed out rightly in this thread, it doesn't count for squat. The fact is people can live perfectly fine lives without weed, so why risk going to jail for it? If they can convince a town or state to change the laws somewhat like California has supposedly done, then that's fine, but as long as it's illegal there is no excuse.

1028 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 2:16:39pm

re: #1025 medaura18586

It's a great point. One I wish had been raised last night when this thread was more active. Keeping marijuana illegal provides an incentive to a black market career and delegitimizes education for some segments of our population. I'll remember this in future conversations I have on this issue. Thanks for a great point.

1029 Salamantis  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 2:17:56pm

re: #817 SFGoth

I'm sick and tired of people who say that weed should be illegal and then make all kinds of excuses for alcohol.

re: #832 zombie

I'm sick and tired of people who say heroin should be illegal and then make all kinds of excuses for marijuana.

The flaw in your analogy, zombie, is while alcohol causes more damage than weed does, so does heroin.

1030 Salamantis  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 2:20:39pm

re: #829 zombie

[Shakes head.]

So, it's perfectly OK to tell people they can't mix up their own meth with perfectly legal ingredients, yet it's forbidden to make pot illlegal? Double-standard alert!

Meth is highly addictive, causes violent behavior, and it kills. Marijuana does none of these things. Most people can see enough of a difference to make a distinction between them.

1031 medaura18586  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 2:22:22pm

re: #1030 Salamantis

Meth is highly addictive, causes violent behavior, and it kills. Marijuana does none of these things. Most people can see enough of a difference to make a distinction between them.

There is a qualitative distinction, but I'm not sure whether it's even relevant here.

Should suicide be illegal?

1032 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 2:42:20pm

re: #1027 Basho

The LSD thing was a joke, I don't want that legalized either. Anyway, I have my personal reasons, but as has been pointed out rightly in this thread, it doesn't count for squat.

It doesn't count for much as an argument for maintaining the ban on marijuana, I was thinking more of the psychological insight to be derived from it.

The fact is people can live perfectly fine lives without weed, so why risk going to jail for it?

If it were legal there would be no risk and you wouldn't have to ask. So why should it not be legal? Can you think of a non-circular argument against legalizing it?

If they can convince a town or state to change the laws somewhat like California has supposedly done, then that's fine, but as long as it's illegal there is no excuse.

And you can't conceive of a law being unjust? That seems like kind of a bovine perspective.

1033 Salamantis  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:08:35pm

re: #1031 medaura18586

There is a qualitative distinction, but I'm not sure whether it's even relevant here.

Should suicide be illegal?

Depends on context. Would you deny someone who is terminally ill, paralyzed, and in intractable pain the opportunity, should they choose to exercise it, to end their own misery?

But would the same context apply to a perfectly healthy person who is only momentarily distraught or depressed?

Distinctions must be made. Including between drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin that are highly addictive, cause violent behavior, and that can kill you, and marijuana, which does none of these things.

But my flippant answer is that unsuccessful suicide should be punishable by death...;~)

1034 gandalf.il  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:22:59pm

re: #30 barere

I support legalization (or at least de-criminalization), but by this rationale, the government has no right banning hard drugs too.
I believe the impact of hard drugs on society (and not just the person taking them) justifies banning them.

1035 Achilles Tang  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:23:17pm

re: #1013 Basho

lol
Why would anyone risk going to jail to get high? That's as irrational as one can get. If they get stuck in prison I say that's just natural selection at work.

You are a reasonable person; are you also one who takes no risk in life, regardless how small? I doubt it.

This brings to mind a real old episode of Star Trek where they came upon a totally peaceful society only to find that all transgressions, accidental or not, were applied an immediate death penalty. That included stepping on the grass in a protected area.

The point being that it worked, but at the cost of creating a society of ants.

When I was young (er) the finer points of this or that source of grass/hash was a common weekend pastime, but most of us got our degrees regardless and eventually the thrill of giggling at stupid jokes and finding nachos to be the food of the gods wore thin. Even sex became better without help.

The penalties then were minor, and we never had any.

I suspect the same will apply to most people a generation or two later if we become more ration about this.

1036 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:37:21pm

re: #991 Salem

We all need to dial back the anecdotal evidence a little.

Keep your personal anecdotes off my body?

1037 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 3:53:00pm

re: #1036 Sharmuta

Keep your personal anecdotes off my body?

Anecdotes should be broken on the rack and cast into an oubliette.

1038 Sheepdogess  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 4:49:44pm

The more a society allows a behavior, more of that behavior will occur.

Sexual promiscuity - a 20 year old virgin is an anomaly in the US. In my kids 7th grade heath class, keep in mind he was eleven when he had this class, they do not discourage sexual activity. They just want it to be safe. They offer up several types of birth control for these 11 and 12 year old kids. I wonder if these teachers would give their spouses a box of condoms as they were leaving for a business trip. "Here honey, take these Trojans with you. I don't want you to cheat but if you do, at least be safe".
The age of consent has for the most part been abolished today.

Single motherhood - This does not include divorced parents. Now in the US 40% of all children are born bastards. Over 80% of all violent criminals in federal prisons were raised in fatherless households.

Pot smoking - My kid told me that most college kids smoke dope. This is very depressing (perhaps they get stoned to forget the drivel their professors are force feeding them). Just because every one does it, doesn't mean it should be legal. Everyone speeds too. I can't imagine getting rid of speed limits.

Deadly disease spreading sexual activity - HIV exposures have risen for the past several years.

I believe legalizing weed would be a disaster, but that's just my opinion.

1039 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 4:52:26pm

re: #1038 Sheepdogess

Do you think it's government's role to enforce your idea of morality unto others?

1040 Yashmak  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 4:54:30pm

re: #999 hebrewtoyou


Yashmak, funny how similar our situations and experience are. ;)

Indeed. I too just up and stopped using pot one day. Like you, I never felt any sort of withdrawal, either psychological or physical. Now, if I could only say the same thing about regular old legal tobacco cigarrettes. . .THAT would be a wonderful thing.

1041 Yashmak  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 4:59:18pm

re: #1002 Sharmuta

It's creating a criminal class of otherwise law abiding citizens.

This is my biggest problem with current laws as well.

The trade off in the status quo is is more of a detriment than the trade off in changing this policy.

My feelings exactly. Plus, the government can make up some of the massive deficits its spawning, while at the same time taking money out of the hands of illegal drug dealers and possibly even putting it in the hands of legitimate businessmen.

1042 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 4:59:23pm

Wow, I don't think I've seen this much hyperbole, stawman construction, and outright bullshit since some of the early creationism threads.

Some of this crap sounds like it could've been written by Jack Chick himself.

1043 Perplexed  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 5:02:58pm

re: #2 Charles

And no, I am not a pot smoker. Sorry, stalkers.

You write code and I make the assumption that you're pretty good at doing that. Pot messes up the higher order thought processes and suspect that recreational drug use would make your job harder.

I once worked with a guy who partied on weekends. After he missed out on a pay raise by a fraction of a point I asked to see his time sheets for the previous year and was able to accurately tell him when he partied. That night his pot went into the toilet. I can't recommend the use of pot.

1044 Hawaii69  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 5:03:26pm

re: #12 Taqiyyotomist

I don't think every song has his name mentioned,
but apparently Carlos plans to do the next best
thing: Retire to Maui and open a church.

1045 Sheepdogess  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 5:39:46pm

re: #1039 Sharmuta

The more a society allows lionizes as in "celebrity bastard babies", and condones a behavior, more of that behavior will occur.

The Frivolity of evil- Theodore Dalrymple
[Link: www.city-journal.org...]

1046 mashiki  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 6:21:12pm

Well I'm currently in a police foundations class, and I'm going to say that even the instructors(all with more than +30yrs of policing from being a inspector to undercover) that I have say that in Canada within 10yrs, it'll be legalized. Up here we're already looking at 20%+ of the population smoking the stuff. It's not worth the effort to jail or bust someone for smoking it. It's worth the effort to shut down a grow-op, but even then the courts directly limit the 'cost' per-plant to $1k. (See common law.)

We could be doing more important things like busting the scum suckers selling 8balls and elbows of coke, or the smacktards out in BC that are out in a all out war over the coke and heroin trade.

Whether you like what I've said or not, it's the way it's moving up here.

1047 neverquit  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 6:39:40pm

People abuse booze everyday. Booze kills every day. Booze destroys families everyday. Entire industries exist around booze, whether getting people off of it, or getting people to drink more of it.

All of the above applies to greed as well.

No smoking, no trans-fats, no bank failures, no foreclosures, no losers in Little League.......that sounds scarier than a joint or two every now and then....jmho.

As far as the gate-way argument? pffffffffffffffffft.......the first drug I did was nicotine, then I stole a beer......."Drugs and Alcohol"? Alcohol is a drug dummies....All you two martini lunchers, and weekly/daily drinkers are aka "functional alcoholics", and imho, hypocritical if you make fun of people who smoke less pot in comparison to the amount of alcohol you drink....

1048 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 6:49:28pm

re: #1045 Sheepdogess

You didn't answer my question, I noticed.

1049 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:18:09pm

I used to work as a clerk in a liquor store, many, many years ago. I saw daily what long term alcohol abuse was was capable of doing to people. Living on the streets, panhandling all day, buying booze with pocket change, traveling all around town to hit different liquor stores so they wouldn't get cut off by one for shopping too much, they'd even resort to buying Scope to get their buzz until they realized there was more alcohol in hair spray. Yes- they drank hair spray. These were the types of people the Woman's Christian Temperance Union were trying to stop from being the dregs of society by making everyone stop consuming alcohol by legislating it.

But it didn't work then- it made matters worse. And the reason is because humans are flawed. You can't save those who don't want to be saved. They have to want to save themselves. You can' make people give a sh*t about themselves if they don't want to. They have to find the answer for themselves. It's a free country (supposedly) and if someone wants to waste their life by drinking it away, they're going to find a way to do that. That is the sad reality. They are the ones responsible for making these terrible decisions in their life. whether you think they're stupid decisions is moot. It is their decision to make, not yours. It's the price of freedom, and if you don't like it, then I don't know what to tell you.

1050 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:35:31pm

re: #1032 Salem

And you can't conceive of a law being unjust? That seems like kind of a bovine perspective.

Obviously I don't think banning marijuana is unjust. If the plant went extinct 300 years ago you wouldn't know the difference. Hence why I find it laughable that people are willing to go to jail over it.

1051 goodbrue57  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:48:40pm

It seems to me that insurance is a big issue. If the insurance company actuaries think that it'll cost them more, then they'll lobby against it. Do you think helmet laws were instituted for the good of the motorcycle rider? No, they were instituted because bikers who crashed without helmets were costing insurers more money. If the insurers have to pay more, then our premiums go up. This applies to car and health insurance.

1052 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:50:21pm

re: #1035 Naso Tang

You are a reasonable person; are you also one who takes no risk in life, regardless how small? I doubt it.

If I speed on the highway I'll get fined. Things have consequences, and possessing marijuana has some very harsh punishments in some places. My point is getting high has no benefits except trivial and superficial ones.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time and all that...

I haven't said it shouldn't be legalized. If they get elected representatives who see things their way and change the laws then they can do all the weed they want. As long as it's illegal though it's a stupid choice.

1053 neverquit  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:51:34pm

re: #1050 Basho

People go to jail for all kinds of things. None of it is laughable. The plant exists does it not? Seems an odd argument on your part.

It is a perfectly rational thing to question whether or not laws regarding marijuana are any more or less rational than laws regarding other intoxicating substances.

Laws are broken everyday, laws that exist to protect people from others who make bad decisions, remember that the next time you break any speed limits while driving, you could kill or harm someone. And don't tell me you don't speed because you think it's silly. I won't believe you.

The issue isn't whether you think it's silly to risk going to jail for marijuana. Most people do not go to jail if they are simply using it.
Just like people who break speed limit laws. An aggressive driver is more dangerous than someone smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home. I see hundreds of people every day make irrational decisions that break laws. The more logical question is does the punishment fit the crime?

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it....heehee

1054 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 7:57:04pm

re: #1053 neverquit

The more logical question is does the punishment fit the crime?


Well, if one wants to pretend that they are the modern day Rosa Parks for getting tossed in the slammer for possession of a baggie, more power to them. I'll still think they're delusional.

1055 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:00:58pm

re: #1050 Basho

I'm kind of surprised by you and your comments. You usually display more logic in your arguments, but I find this line of reasoning from you to be weak. People risked jail for their booze consumption during Prohibition as well. While you may find it odd, the explanation is that humans want to be inebriated, either in large or small quantities, depending on the individual. Some individuals choose sobriety, and that's great. Most people don't have that sort of will power- they desire some sort of stimulant (or depressant).

I can't really express it any better than my #1002. It's a trade off situation. Is the current state of affairs worth the non-pay out we're currently seeing, with large sums of money being spent for virtually no reward while restricting individual liberties, or would the legalization trade off be better? Where resources could be spent elsewhere and individual liberty respected? The trade off already assumes that there will be negatives in abuse, but that most adults will remain responsible citizens. Which is better?

1056 neverquit  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:01:28pm

re: #1054 Basho

Rosa Parks? What kind of tact is that? It's certainly not a reasonable one, imho. Comparing marijuana laws to equality for all human beings? Come on man. That is folly on your part. Try something else.

1057 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:14:55pm

re: #811 Colonel Panik

I wonder what would have happened if Bush had legalized weed.

Would many lefties have stopped hatin' on him?

Would the stoned voters have still elected Barack 0bama?

Or would they have just stayed home and gotten high?

1058 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:15:08pm

I don't know... my points are spread out in different comments so that is probably leading to confusion...

Of course the Rosa Parks things was unreasonable. That was the point! She actually stood up to an unjust law. I'm not the one calling marijuana laws unjust. They exist and all they do is prohibit someone from possessing a certain type of plant. The punishments are well known, people are fully aware of the risks.

I also know people want to get inebriated. There are plenty of legal alternatives. If weed is as nonaddictive as its supporters like to portray, then not doing it is easy as pie.

And I am not against legalization. If they manage to legalize it then fine. They have no right to break the law in the meantime.

1059 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:19:30pm

re: #329 ggt

Mood-altering drugs, whether legal or not, are ALL BAD for individuals and society as a whole. Exceptions made for medical reasons only!


There's something I can get behind!

1060 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:41:51pm

re: #1059 Basho

There's something I can get behind!

So we should ban booze again?

1061 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:45:13pm

You updinged someone who proposed shooting all "drug-addicts" (#955 useless). I think it's pretty clear from that that you can't be expected to debate this rationally and I'd go so far as to say that your credibility on any issue of liberty and individual rights is pretty well shot.

1062 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:46:06pm

Please, PLEASE legislate every aspect of my life. I am incapable of making decisions. My value as an individual is nothing in context of the group, and the group must always come first. Please- make me a drone to the will of the greater good!

1063 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:50:16pm

re: #1062 Sharmuta

TOTUS is working on it!

1064 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:55:21pm

re: #1061 Salem

Err... I took that as using hyperbole to make a point. My bad if I read into it too much

re: #1060 Sharmuta

So we should ban booze again?

Prohibition failed, that's something I have to live with. Marijuana is still illegal, others have to live with that.

1065 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:57:05pm

re: #1064 Basho

Alcohol is a drug.

1066 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:00:11pm

re: #1065 Sharmuta

I know. I'm not the type of person SFGoth described in #817. Just cause I got behind ggt's proposal doesn't mean I think it's realistic.

1067 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:05:12pm

re: #1066 Basho

So why is it realistic in the case of marijuana, where we're wasting billions of dollars, yet people are still smoking it? I think that's unrealistic- to think you can get humans to accept sobriety. They won't. So let us minimize the damage by being realistic. I do not think abuse will be more prevalent. Those that enjoy marijuana will continue to do so. Those that don't like it will continue to be sober or stick with alcohol. Those that do it occasionally will still do it occasionally. Meanwhile- we're wasting money and empowering the black market and bad men running cartels. Where is the sense in this?

1068 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:05:12pm

I'd think that tobacco is a "gateway drug" to pot. How many people who were nonsmokers of tobacco have ever tried marijuana, I wonder?

I've never had either, but I think that if I had ever taken up smoking tobacco, my likelihood of trying pot would have been increased.

Now that there's such a social stigma and onerous regulaiton and taxes imposed on tobacco smokers, has it affected the popularity of smoking weed?

1069 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:07:47pm

re: #1064 Basho

Err... I took that as using hyperbole to make a point. My bad if I read into it too much

That being the case, I take it back. I don't get your hostility toward pot-smokers but I reckon it's not my problem.

1070 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:08:16pm

You dinged up my 1049, Basho. How is it you don't see the parallel?

1071 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:09:09pm

My theory would be, fewer smokers, fewer pot smokers, generally.

Or do the differing pharmacological effects of nicotine and THC attract different users?

1072 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:15:03pm

re: #1067 Sharmuta

So why is it realistic in the case of marijuana, where we're wasting billions of dollars, yet people are still smoking it? I think that's unrealistic- to think you can get humans to accept sobriety. They won't. So let us minimize the damage by being realistic. I do not think abuse will be more prevalent. Those that enjoy marijuana will continue to do so. Those that don't like it will continue to be sober or stick with alcohol. Those that do it occasionally will still do it occasionally. Meanwhile- we're wasting money and empowering the black market and bad men running cartels. Where is the sense in this?

I get the theory, though I believe abuse will be more prevalent. But that's still all speculation, and the social costs could end up being enormous if it's wrong. If it gets legalized in a few states then after some time there might be some data showing positive opportunity costs. That could convince the majority to legalize it nationwide.

The Marijuana Party (yes I think that's the actual name of a political party of NY) isn't getting elected, so most people don't feel it's a good idea, and I don't blame them.

1073 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:17:27pm

re: #1070 Sharmuta

You dinged up my 1049, Basho. How is it you don't see the parallel?

I sympathized with you and agreed some people are just hopeless. I don't think it should absolve people of punishment for breaking the law though.

1074 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:18:40pm

re: #1072 Basho

I disagree. I don't think it will dramatically increase. Even if it did, and other crimes remained the same or went down because of the lack of the black market, would that be a fair trade off?

1075 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:18:46pm

re: #1071 Dar ul Harb

My theory would be, fewer smokers, fewer pot smokers, generally.

Or do the differing pharmacological effects of nicotine and THC attract different users?

I don't know but I think tobacco tastes horrid and find the "high" unpleasant. I'm not an anti-smoking nazi and I've worked around a lot of smoke (not since it's effectively been banned from public, though) but I've never understood for an instant why anyone would actually enjoy it.

1076 Sharmuta  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:19:56pm

re: #1073 Basho

I sympathized with you and agreed some people are just hopeless. I don't think it should absolve people of punishment for breaking the law though.

We're discussing changing the law because of parallels to Prohibition. People are going to make stupid decisions- you can't legislate that away!

1077 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:20:08pm

re: #1072 Basho

You do know it hasn't always been illegal, right?

1078 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:22:16pm

re: #1074 Sharmuta

I disagree. I don't think it will dramatically increase. Even if it did, and other crimes remained the same or went down because of the lack of the black market, would that be a fair trade off?

If crime went down and productivity stays the same, and if people aren't abusing it in a way that negatively impacts society (DUIs, child abuse), then it would be a fair trade off. I just don't see it happening.

1079 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:25:49pm

re: #1075 Salem

I don't know but I think tobacco tastes horrid and find the "high" unpleasant. I'm not an anti-smoking nazi and I've worked around a lot of smoke (not since it's effectively been banned from public, though) but I've never understood for an instant why anyone would actually enjoy it.

I kind of feel that way about coffee. ;)

(And I have tried that.)

1080 Basho  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:29:48pm

Gotta go to sleep. Nite all. Hope this discussions will cause people to stop thinking I'm some sleeper left-wing troll.

1081 Dar ul Harb  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:34:46pm

Well, it's all fun and games until someone clones a capsaicin gene in place of the THC.

Don't inhale!

1082 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:38:04pm

re: #1079 Dar ul Harb

I kind of feel that way about coffee. ;)

(And I have tried that.)

Oh god I love coffee. No cream, no fluffy drinks, just deep black coffee. Can't drink too much without getting stressed, though.

1083 Salem  Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:56:39pm

re: #1080 Basho

Gotta go to sleep. Nite all. Hope this discussions will cause people to stop thinking I'm some sleeper left-wing troll.

?

Well, that was a strange thing to say. Anyway, who cares? When I first used to post here everyone hated me and called me everything from a jihadi plant to Satan himself (no joke!). Didn't bother me a bit because Charles didn't seem to mind my tirades. I was taking on the extreme right-wingers and "BOMB 'EM ALL" 'tards (which were legion at the time) and I didn't care for their their approval. It was when people started liking me that I got uncomfortable because I had to be more political and choose my words more carefully. But I adjusted.

That said, I find your promotion of the insidious global warming cult as unsavory as your approval of the troggish misguided marijuana laws. But I guess that's just how you roll.

1084 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 12:02:30am

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

-Genesis 1:29 KJB

1085 Salem  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 12:21:31am

Hallelujah!

1086 tyree  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 6:44:25am

re: #1004 Sharmuta

Another way to stop funneling money to drug cartels would be for the dope fiends to voluntarily stop consuming to drive them out of business. It could happen if drug users cared about anything other than themselves. They know their "habit" supports organized crime, but they don't care. Their fix is more important to them than someone else's life.
As I said before, I will support the legalizing of drugs when the drug users prove they are warm, caring and sensitive human beings. If the are just animals who can't think past their next joint, they don't deserve my support.

1087 Edouard  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 6:53:53am

re: #1084 Sharmuta

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

-Genesis 1:29 KJB

Hey, even Lawrence Welk found "toking" to be "spiritual" (note his comment at the end):

Youtube Video
1088 tyree  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 7:05:16am

re: #1077 Salem

A lot of illegal drugs were once legal. My father's godparents died of drug overdoses, in the 1920's, when what they were taking was legal. It was one of the things that led to making them illegal.

1089 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 7:09:42am

re: #1083 Salem

Knowing what someone thinks on one issue is often no guide whatsoever on how they think on other issues - assume NOTHING would be a good motto to go by.

As for the effect on society of legalising cannabis - isn't it true that the Dutch, for whom cannabis is legal to buy and smoke, smoke less than people in the UK, where it is illegal?

1090 charles_martel  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 7:21:09am

re: #1086 tyree

Wow. Pot smokers are "drug fiends" and "animals"? You live in your own sad little world deluded by false propaganda.

1091 SFGoth  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 9:34:00am

All fun threads must come to a close, or to make it topical, we've burned this thread down to a roach. It's been a real high time folks. Some of you urban anti-weed folks might keep that in mind next time you step over some sodden drunk's piss & vomit.

1092 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 10:26:22am

re: #1091 SFGoth

All fun threads must come to a close, or to make it topical, we've burned this thread down to a roach.

This should make sure it doesn't get up again for at least 3 days:

100 Weight of Collie Weed

1093 Yashmak  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 10:57:10am

re: #1086 tyree

They know their "habit" supports organized crime, but they don't care. Their fix is more important to them than someone else's life.

It's not that they don't care. Many don't see why possession/use of something that is arguably less dangerous than alchohol is somehow criminal, while possession/use of alchohol is not.

As I said before, I will support the legalizing of drugs when the drug users prove they are warm, caring and sensitive human beings. If the are just animals who can't think past their next joint, they don't deserve my support.

As an ex-user of marijuana myself, I find it ironic you would post such an uncaring, unsensitive comment so expansive as to include such a person as myself. I am neither an animal (well, no more or less than we ALL are animals), nor was there EVER a point where I couldn't "think past my next joint".

My father's godparents died of drug overdoses, in the 1920's, when what they were taking was legal. It was one of the things that led to making them illegal.

While that is sad, it is neither here nor there. No one has ever died of a marijuana overdose, so obviously it's not one of the things that led to making marijuana illegal.

1094 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 11:31:06am

re: #1086 tyree

As I said before, I will support the legalizing of drugs when the drug users prove they are warm, caring and sensitive human beings.

What a lovely generalized assumption you make of people you don't even know.


re: #1088 tyree

A lot of illegal drugs were once legal. My father's godparents died of drug overdoses, in the 1920's, when what they were taking was legal. It was one of the things that led to making them illegal.

And alcohol killed my mother. But I don't use my tragedy to demand others quit drinking, nor do I feel morally superior to even suggest such a thing because of my little martyr badge.

1095 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 11:42:03am

re: #1083 Salem

It's strange. Basho is a thoroughly decent sort, and normally very much a social liberal. I'm guessing he or someone close to him may have been unlucky enough to have had a very unfortunate personal experience with pot?

1096 Yashmak  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 12:13:19pm

re: #1072 Basho

I get the theory, though I believe abuse will be more prevalent. But that's still all speculation, and the social costs could end up being enormous if it's wrong. If it gets legalized in a few states then after some time there might be some data showing positive opportunity costs. That could convince the majority to legalize it nationwide.

Actually, it's been largely decriminalized in several states already, and in others, it has become medically available over the counter. In those states, use of Marijuana has actually been matching the slow decline in the use of this substance seen nationwide over the past few decades.

The Marijuana Party (yes I think that's the actual name of a political party of NY) isn't getting elected, so most people don't feel it's a good idea, and I don't blame them.

I have a feeling that has a bit more to do with them being a one-issue-party, a relatively inconsequential issue at that, since pot is easily available already to anyone who wants it.

1097 MissLL  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 1:11:17pm

re: #377 So?

Yeah, what about the creative element? Hendrix smoked dope all the time. If you speak to musicians or artists it opens up creative doors. I'm talking grass here, not cocaine or speed or heroin. Grass has this ability in many to make them super creative. I know, it did for me way back, and no I don't smoke anymore, but for other reasons. So don't generalize how people who smoke pot have no motivation. That's a load of bull crap. I know at least a half dozen musicians who have major label record deals, are very productive , creative and live wonderful fulfilling lives. And quite a few painters too.

Okay, what about Beethoven? Robert Louis Stevenson? Mark Twain? Newton? Einstein? DaVinci? I'll bet that none of them smoked pot - but were fantastically creative and brilliant, each in their own way.

1098 tyree  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 1:21:46pm

re: #1094 Sharmuta

They don't care if they support the murder of police, soldiers, elected officials, priests, tourists, women and children in Mexico. Illicit drug users do not deserve our support, they certainly won't get mine. They need to take some responsibility for the effects of their actions and fix their problem before I will support them.

Support peace in Mexico, stop using illegal drugs now.

1099 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 1:31:49pm

re: #1098 tyree

There is a much quicker way to disarm the cartels. But you reject that solution because you apparently feel you have the moral authority to judge other people's behavior and make us live the way you think we should live. We have the right to not live your way, but rather the way we see fit so long as we're not infringing upon the rights of others.

This is no different that the alcohol prohibition. It was banned to save people from themselves and it failed. We saw increased organized crime. Why didn't everyone just quit drinking like they were supposed to? Because it an effort in futility- humans want to consume inebriates.

1100 Yashmak  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 2:06:38pm

re: #1097 MissLL

Okay, what about Beethoven? Robert Louis Stevenson? Mark Twain? Newton? Einstein? DaVinci? I'll bet that none of them smoked pot - but were fantastically creative and brilliant, each in their own way.

It's fun to make bets you can never be called on, because there's no way of proving or disproving your contention. For the record, Einstein's autopsy showed traces of both LSD and DMT, and it's thought that Stevenson wrote about Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde while under the influence of a derivitive of ergot. As for the others, who knows? A three minute websearch provided at least two on your list whose work may indeed have been affected some form of mind altering substance.

Not that it really matters. You argument is not logical on its face. It's as if you're trying to say they wouldn't have been brilliant if they had used marijuana, something no one here can possibly know.

1101 Yashmak  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 2:11:57pm

re: #1098 tyree

They don't care if they support the murder of police, soldiers, elected officials, priests, tourists, women and children in Mexico. Illicit drug users do not deserve our support, they certainly won't get mine. They need to take some responsibility for the effects of their actions and fix their problem before I will support them.

Support peace in Mexico, stop using illegal drugs now.

And what we're contending here, is that it would be better if marijuana weren't illegal anymore. No one is asking anyone to support drug users here, that's a straw man you're setting up.

1102 SFGoth  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:00:22pm

re: #1097 MissLL

Okay, what about Beethoven? Robert Louis Stevenson? Mark Twain? Newton? Einstein? DaVinci? I'll bet that none of them smoked pot - but were fantastically creative and brilliant, each in their own way.

Probably borderline insane to begin with.

1103 SFGoth  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:03:36pm

re: #1098 tyree

They don't care if they support the murder of police, soldiers, elected officials, priests, tourists, women and children in Mexico. Illicit drug users do not deserve our support, they certainly won't get mine. They need to take some responsibility for the effects of their actions and fix their problem before I will support them.

Support peace in Mexico, stop using illegal drugs now.

How does buying locally-grown marijuana help the Mexican drug trade? You know, I'll bet the bad cartels in Mexico are involved in the tequila biz too. STOP BUYING TEQUILA NOW - save Mexico!

1104 MissLL  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:15:10pm

re: #1100 Yashmak

It's fun to make bets you can never be called on, because there's no way of proving or disproving your contention. For the record, Einstein's autopsy showed traces of both LSD and DMT, and it's thought that Stevenson wrote about Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde while under the influence of a derivitive of ergot. As for the others, who knows? A three minute websearch provided at least two on your list whose work may indeed have been affected some form of mind altering substance.

Not that it really matters. You argument is not logical on its face. It's as if you're trying to say they wouldn't have been brilliant if they had used marijuana, something no one here can possibly know.

I'm not making bets. You can pick one or two out of all the people I named, but you can't say that ALL of them were under mind-numbing influences. Or that many more I can name were under some influence like that. For the record, I've read biographies of Stevenson and Twain (two of them) - have you? To insult me by saying that I'm not being logical doesn't help to drive home your point very well.

1105 MissLL  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:16:44pm

re: #1102 SFGoth

Probably borderline insane to begin with.

Actually, no. Mark Twain and Robert Louis Stevenson were quite sane and pragmatic (Stevenson was studying to be a doctor to begin with).

1106 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:23:25pm

re: #1105 MissLL

I'm not sure Twain is the temperance advocate you think he is.

1107 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:30:10pm

In fact- doing a little digging it seems Mr. Twain favored the temperance movement be focused on families and church communities and not on a national level. That seems reasonable enough to me, because that's where it belongs. The man smoked and drank, and didn't seem willing to give up what he felt wasn't a problem as he wasn't a drunk.

I have to wonder if this desire to keep weed illegal is more of a reflection on the failure of the family and church community at keeping people sober and, in the eyes of some, moral.

1108 paradox42  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:30:45pm

re: #1098 tyree

They don't care if they support the murder of police, soldiers, elected officials, priests, tourists, women and children in Mexico. Illicit drug users do not deserve our support, they certainly won't get mine. They need to take some responsibility for the effects of their actions and fix their problem before I will support them.

Support peace in Mexico, stop using illegal drugs now.

Everyone who fills up their car is technically funding jihad because some of that money goes to Saudi tyrants who use it to fund wahhabism around the world.

By that logic, everyone who drive a gas guzzler is a sociopath who supports Islamic terrorism.

1109 MissLL  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:32:44pm

re: #1106 Sharmuta

I'm not sure Twain is the temperance advocate you think he is.

Sharmuta, I never said that he was (especially after having read two books on Twain). I'm talking about smoking pot here and I doubt that he did.

1110 paradox42  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:35:34pm

re: #1098 tyree

They don't care if they support the murder of police, soldiers, elected officials, priests, tourists, women and children in Mexico. Illicit drug users do not deserve our support, they certainly won't get mine. They need to take some responsibility for the effects of their actions and fix their problem before I will support them.

Support peace in Mexico, stop using illegal drugs now.

I knew a girl who started using drugs to numb the pain of being raped by her father from the ages of 8 to 13.

The sickest part:

If she was busted for possession, she'd have done 20 years. Her "father" got 10 iirc.

There's something hideously wrong with that.

1111 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:40:35pm

re: #1109 MissLL

This is no different than prohibition of alcohol. Please, enlighten me as to how a marijuana smoker who maintains their job, pays their bills and taxes, and violates no other laws should be treated as a criminal or is any different than a person who maintains their job, pays their bills and taxes and enjoys a glass of wine nightly while not violating any other laws? Just because some might find it repugnant doesn't mean they have the right to force their moral judgement upon others. I worked in the liquor industry for over a decade- I can tell you horror stories. But it's the right of those people to abuse themselves no matter how disgusting I personally find it. And it's legal. And society glamorizes it. And it's dangerous! It kills people. But freedom means other people can make decisions you and I might not like.

1112 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:41:03pm

re: #1110 paradox42

Absolutely!

1113 Salem  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:44:55pm

Rumors of this threads death have been greatly exaggerated.

1114 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:47:27pm

re: #1113 Salem

We're scraping the bowl now for resin. ;)

1115 MissLL  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:50:01pm

re: #1111 Sharmuta

This is no different than prohibition of alcohol. Please, enlighten me as to how a marijuana smoker who maintains their job, pays their bills and taxes, and violates no other laws should be treated as a criminal or is any different than a person who maintains their job, pays their bills and taxes and enjoys a glass of wine nightly while not violating any other laws? Just because some might find it repugnant doesn't mean they have the right to force their moral judgement upon others. I worked in the liquor industry for over a decade- I can tell you horror stories. But it's the right of those people to abuse themselves no matter how disgusting I personally find it. And it's legal. And society glamorizes it. And it's dangerous! It kills people. But freedom means other people can make decisions you and I might not like.

So, you can say for sure, studies and all, that a great deal of marijuana smokers aren't ruining their lives? And that it isn't a gateway drug? Sorry, but how do you know for sure about this? I'm not discounting your horror stories in the liquor industry, but pot is still illegal and I think it should stay that way. Why make it more accessible? Like the lady who related the story of a kid high on pot killing a woman by hitting her with his car, why take that chance? Is one more life not worthy to be saved by trying to make pot less accessible? Sure, you can throw the old "freedom" quote back in my face - it still doesn't make it right.

1116 charles_martel  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 3:50:49pm

So many people have bought into the propaganda and lies that pot is evil, dangerous, and will harm society. It is no worse than alcohol, and that's a fact. The lies have been propagated by the alcohol and tobacco industries, who fear that pot will decrease their profits.

1117 SFGoth  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:02:24pm

re: #1107 Sharmuta

I have to wonder if this desire to keep weed illegal is more of a reflection on the failure of the family and church community at keeping people sober and, in the eyes of some, moral.

Nahhh, it's to promote alcohol so that the menfolk can keep the womenfolk in line and to encourage wife-beating. If the men of these churches smoked up, got horny, and realized that there are better things to do to your wife than beat her (even if only ignore her in favor of Led Zeppelin IV), then, why hell, all hell would break loose.

1118 neverquit  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:07:31pm

re: #1115 MissLL

Like the lady who related the story of a kid high on pot killing a woman by hitting her with his car, why take that chance?

Alcohol kills 15,000 lives annually on the roads and highways of the United States.

* Alcohol was involved in 39 percent of fatal crashes and in 7 percent of all crashes in 1997.
* About 3 in every 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives.
* In 1997, the age group of drivers with the highest rates for fatal crashes while intoxicated was 21–24 years old (26.3 percent), followed by ages 25–34 (23.8 percent) and 35–44 (22.1 percent).
* Relatively few problem drinkers (about 7 percent of all drivers) account for over 66 percent of all alcohol-related fatal crashes.
* One-third of all pedestrians 16 years of age or older killed in traffic crashes in 1997 were intoxicated.
* In 1997, an estimated 846 lives were saved by minimum-drinking-age laws.

When are you going to re-enact prohibition.
see post 1053.

1119 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:07:41pm

re: #1100 Yashmak

The South Park guys are proof enough for me that you don't need drugs to be wildly creative. But on the other side of the argument, there's the entire artistic output of the late 19th century...

1120 Salem  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:07:44pm

I've got to say that it's a good idea not to recommend folks drive when they're high. You could get in a crack-up that way. But after smoking pot a person doesn't get the inclination to go barreling down the interstate weaving across the blacktop. They may hesitate to drive at all if they feel they are too baked. But they aren't half as numb or oblivious to peril as a drunk. People shouldn't drink or drive either but you can buy all the booze you want. Yet some people feel so strongly that this natural plant, that they know their deity put on the earth, be illegal that they indulge on maligning it. Weird, man.

Tell you what, next time you're getting drunk ask yourself where your God gave you the permission. Maybe your mind will be more open.

1121 SFGoth  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:08:45pm

re: #1113 Salem

Rumors of this threads death have been greatly exaggerated.

re: #1115 MissLL

And that it isn't a gateway drug? Sorry, but how do you know for sure about this?

Can we stop with this gateway nonsense? Does anyone here actually know anyone -- or heard a reliable rumor of anyone -- who has used hard drugs without first smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol? Frankly, the concept of someone who shoots heroin or snorts coke but has never smoked a cig or had a beer/booze boggles my mind. Furthermore, people advocate maintaining the illicit status of cannabis -- put here on Earth by the Goddess herself -- while not wishing to criminalize alcohol -- which does not naturally occur in drinkable form -- is simply a hypocrite who wants to impose their morals on the rest of us. When the Islamofascists come for you, don't run to me for help.

1122 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:09:08pm

re: #1115 MissLL

That kid could have just as easily have been drinking!

There are lots of bad things in the world. I think TV is bad, but I don't force other people to stop watching it.

Don't like pot? Don't smoke it. If they're not bothering you, then what business is it of yours if anyone else is smoking it provided they're not infringing on the rights of others?

1123 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:11:07pm

re: #1118 neverquit

That's not even including deaths by alcohol poisoning or other alcohol related deaths.

1124 MissLL  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:11:22pm

re: #1118 neverquit

Alcohol kills 15,000 lives annually on the roads and highways of the United States.

* Alcohol was involved in 39 percent of fatal crashes and in 7 percent of all crashes in 1997.
* About 3 in every 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives.
* In 1997, the age group of drivers with the highest rates for fatal crashes while intoxicated was 21–24 years old (26.3 percent), followed by ages 25–34 (23.8 percent) and 35–44 (22.1 percent).
* Relatively few problem drinkers (about 7 percent of all drivers) account for over 66 percent of all alcohol-related fatal crashes.
* One-third of all pedestrians 16 years of age or older killed in traffic crashes in 1997 were intoxicated.
* In 1997, an estimated 846 lives were saved by minimum-drinking-age laws.

When are you going to re-enact prohibition.
see post 1053.

Wow, attack attack! Again, I'm not saying that alcohol is not dangerous either (where did you get that?). I'm just saying pot shouldn't be legalized in my opinion. By the way, attacking someone doesn't help your argument, okay?

1125 MissLL  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:12:42pm

re: #1122 Sharmuta

That kid could have just as easily have been drinking!

There are lots of bad things in the world. I think TV is bad, but I don't force other people to stop watching it.

Don't like pot? Don't smoke it. If they're not bothering you, then what business is it of yours if anyone else is smoking it provided they're not infringing on the rights of others?

But he wasn't. He was high on pot, and he killed someone. Yeah, that's right. So it does indeed infringe on people (and their lives).

1126 paradox42  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:14:05pm

A big difference between pot and alcohol I haven't seen brought up yet.

A longtime pot smoker who stops using will feel like crap for a week or two.

A longtime alcoholic who stops drinking can die from the withdrawal.

1127 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:14:42pm

re: #1114 Sharmuta

I could maybe handle that, but let's not do an Anjem Choudary and start making joints out of the roaches.

1128 MissLL  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:15:02pm

re: #1121 SFGoth

Can we stop with this gateway nonsense? Does anyone here actually know anyone -- or heard a reliable rumor of anyone -- who has used hard drugs without first smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol? Frankly, the concept of someone who shoots heroin or snorts coke but has never smoked a cig or had a beer/booze boggles my mind. Furthermore, people advocate maintaining the illicit status of cannabis -- put here on Earth by the Goddess herself -- while not wishing to criminalize alcohol -- which does not naturally occur in drinkable form -- is simply a hypocrite who wants to impose their morals on the rest of us. When the Islamofascists come for you, don't run to me for help.

Dude (or dudette), poison was put her on Earth by the Goddess herself (as I quoted you) but that doesn't mean it's not harmful. Calling me a hypocrite for my opinion? Wow, and here I thought it was a free country! Cause according to you, I can't even say my opinion without being insulted. Way to go!

1129 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:18:53pm

re: #1115 MissLL

So, you can say for sure, studies and all, that a great deal of marijuana smokers aren't ruining their lives? And that it isn't a gateway drug? Sorry, but how do you know for sure about this? I'm not discounting your horror stories in the liquor industry, but pot is still illegal and I think it should stay that way.

It's more likely to be abused in an illegal market place. Also, it's being illegal draws otherwise law abiding citizens into contact with the criminal fraternity. Concern about the well being of users is one of the main reasons I'd like to see it legalized.

1130 MissLL  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:22:09pm

re: #1129 Jimmah

It's more likely to be abused in an illegal market place. Also, it's being illegal draws otherwise law abiding citizens into contact with the criminal fraternity. Concern about the well being of users is one of the main reasons I'd like to see it legalized.

How do you know that pot would be less abused in a legal marketplace? I'm just asking. And why would current law abiding citizens have anything to do with it if they want to stay clear of breaking the law? Then they are clearly not "law abiding citizens" after all.

1131 Salem  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:22:42pm

re: #1095 Jimmah

It's strange. Basho is a thoroughly decent sort, and normally very much a social liberal. I'm guessing he or someone close to him may have been unlucky enough to have had a very unfortunate personal experience with pot?

I'm kind of sorry I said anything about personal anecdotes, now...

1132 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:29:29pm

re: #1130 MissLL

There's the Netherlands, as an example. It's legal there, but people smoke less there than people in the UK. In my experience people tend to use more when the supply and quality is uncertain as it usually is in an illegal setting.

And why would current law abiding citizens have anything to do with it if they want to stay clear of breaking the law? Then they are clearly not "law abiding citizens" after all.

So if your kid ever buys a bit of grass, they're criminal scum to you after that? You aren't willing to see the distinction I'm making between people whose only crime is to buy some weed, and drug traffickers/gansters/whatever?

1133 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:31:08pm

re: #1125 MissLL

But he wasn't. He was high on pot, and he killed someone. Yeah, that's right. So it does indeed infringe on people (and their lives).

And where has anyone advocated the crimes committed while on pot shouldn't be prosecuted just like they are with alcohol?

The fact is, most people are responsible when consuming inebriates. We could tar all drinkers the same way you're tarring all marijuana users, but we're not. It's individual, not collectivist.

1134 Salem  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:34:42pm

Twain tripped shrooms! WOOOOO!-

I'm pretty sure. Feel free to prove he didn't.

1135 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:35:38pm

re: #1125 MissLL

But he wasn't. He was high on pot, and he killed someone. Yeah, that's right. So it does indeed infringe on people (and their lives).

And I noticed you didn't answer the central tenant- if they're not bothering anyone (meaning not infringing upon the rights of others) what business is it of yours?

1136 MissLL  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:35:47pm

re: #1132 Jimmah

There's the Netherlands, as an example. It's legal there, but people smoke less there than people in the UK. In my experience people tend to use more when the supply and quality is uncertain as it usually is in an illegal setting.

So if your kid ever buys a bit of grass, they're criminal scum to you after that? You aren't willing to see the distinction I'm making between people whose only crime is to buy some weed, and drug traffickers/gansters/whatever?

Sorry, but you're using the Netherlands as an example? The place that legalized euthanasia? Oh, sorry, that comment just made me crack up. Listen, I've been there and loads of people smoke the stuff there - they have places everywhere to do that and they're filled to the brim with people getting high all day long. So not very productive eh?

Who said that my kid would be scum to me if they bought grass? Of course I would try to stop them. But insulting me? Why insult me, does that make you feel like you have a better argument than me or something?

1137 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:35:51pm

re: #1131 Salem

I'm kind of sorry I said anything about personal anecdotes, now...

The 'Salem Rule' 2009-2009 RIP ;-)

1138 MissLL  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:37:53pm

re: #1135 Sharmuta

And I noticed you didn't answer the central tenant- if they're not bothering anyone (meaning not infringing upon the rights of others) what business is it of yours?

Uh...did answer it. People are infringing on my rights too if they are hopped in a car and driving down the street at me - or maybe doing surgery on me - or operating a bus I'm on - shall I go on?

1139 MissLL  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:39:33pm

Anyway, all you pot smokers out there, I've got to go - things to do (not related to drugs, hey)

1140 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:40:21pm

re: #1138 MissLL

Uh...did answer it. People are infringing on my rights too if they are hopped in a car and driving down the street at me - or maybe doing surgery on me - or operating a bus I'm on - shall I go on?

No- you didn't answer. You're BSing now. If they're NOT infringing upon you in any way, how is it your business what they do?

1141 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:40:38pm

re: #1139 MissLL

Anyway, all you pot smokers out there, I've got to go - things to do (not related to drugs, hey)

Don't drink and drive.

1142 neverquit  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:42:06pm

re: #1124 MissLL

Goodness me, because I disagree with you, you feel you are being attacked? That was a rational, reasonable response, not an attack.

I am merely making the point that alcohol is responsible for thousands of automobile deaths every year in this country, and it's legal, yet you support it's legality. You mentioned an anecdotal, and tragic point to support your opinion, and I countered it.
You brought up the issue of traffic fatalities, not me.
It is a perfectly rational thing to question whether or not laws regarding marijuana are any more or less rational than laws regarding other intoxicating substances.
Just like people who break speed limit laws. An aggressive driver is more dangerous than someone smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home. I see hundreds of people every day make irrational decisions that break laws.

Laws are broken everyday, laws that exist to protect people from others who make bad decisions, remember that the next time you break any speed limits while driving, you could kill or harm someone. And don't tell me you don't speed because you think it's silly. I won't believe you.

Therefore, your argument is flawed in my opinion.

People abuse booze everyday. Booze kills every day. Booze destroys families everyday. Entire industries exist around booze, whether getting people off of it, or getting people to drink more of it.
All of the above applies to greed as well.
No smoking, no trans-fats, no bank failures, no foreclosures, no losers in Little League.......that sounds scarier than a joint or two every now and then....jmho.
As far as the gate-way argument? pffffffffffffffffft.......the first drug I did was nicotine, then I stole a beer......."Drugs and Alcohol"? Alcohol is a drug dummies....All you two martini lunchers, and weekly/daily drinkers are aka "functional alcoholics", and imho, hypocritical if you make fun of people who smoke less pot in comparison to the amount of alcohol you drink....

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it....heehee

1143 SFGoth  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:42:56pm

re: #1128 MissLL

Dude (or dudette), poison was put her on Earth by the Goddess herself (as I quoted you) but that doesn't mean it's not harmful. Calling me a hypocrite for my opinion? Wow, and here I thought it was a free country! Cause according to you, I can't even say my opinion without being insulted. Way to go!

You are free -- free to be insulted. Where did you ever get the idea that freedom to do X meant freedom from being ridiculed for it. (I'm a dude.) Poison is acutely toxic (or at least severely disabling). Cannabis isn't. Ok, sure, it disables your ability to drive, but if it were "poison", it wouldn't quite be so popular. After all, there isn't much of a black market for concentrated nutmeg solution even though it can cause hallucinations (and horrific cramps). Funny how we don't outlaw poison oak.... Why *don't* you favor prohibiting alcohol (and fatty foods, and sugar btw, sugar is pretty bad for you)?

1144 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:43:14pm
I've been there and loads of people smoke the stuff there - they have places everywhere to do that and they're filled to the brim with people getting high all day long. So not very productive eh?

You are talking about the coffee shops that sell it. Well of course they are going to be full of people getting stoned. In any case the people who fill those places are mostly tourists who go there for one thing only - to get stoned in a legal public setting - ie what they can't do back home. Native Netherlanders habits are quite different.

Who said that my kid would be scum to me if they bought grass? Of course I would try to stop them. But insulting me? Why insult me, does that make you feel like you have a better argument than me or something?

I just asked, it wasn't intended as an insult at all. So I take it you agree then that there is a big difference between the kind of criminal who would buy a bit of weed, and the kind of person who is likely doing the selling? That's the only point I was trying to make.

1145 SFGoth  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:47:20pm

re: #1136 MissLL

Sorry, but you're using the Netherlands as an example? Listen, I've been there and loads of people smoke the stuff there - they have places everywhere to do that and they're filled to the brim with people getting high all day long.


They're called tourists. Mostly Brits, a few French, Germans, Americans, etc. Why do they go to Amsterdam to sit in a cafe, get high, play chess, munch, and then walk around giggling? Ummm, because it's fun? Lighten up and have some fun sometime. You might enjoy the break from foisting your morals on the rest of us.

1146 neverquit  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:48:53pm

re: #1136 MissLL

they have places everywhere to do that and they're filled to the brim with people getting high all day long. So not very productive eh?

Just like bars here in the USA.......Filled with people drinking, aka getting drunk, all day long....So no very productive eh?

1147 Salem  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:49:01pm

re: #1137 Jimmah

The 'Salem Rule' 2009-2009 RIP ;-)

Well, the thing about personal anecdotes is it's someone talking about a friend or relative without informing them. They aren't allowed to prepare a rebuttal. So if you say, for example "My sister-in-law smokes pot and it makes her mousy and paranoid." how are we to know that YOU don't have that effect on her?

And notice how all the urban legends-stories that change and transform across the decades, sometimes centuries, and may never have happened at all-always start with something like "My girlfriend's uncle's sister's cousin told me..."

People use anecdotes to deflect the blame in case it's revealed to be a lie, right? Well I never! How could Bessie-Sue have lied to me like that!

1148 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 4:53:47pm

re: #1147 Salem

I agree - in practice though, they are always going to come up - not that they are always misused of course. Sometimes they can be appropriate in a conversation. It's when people use them to dismiss masses of statistically accrued scientific data that annoys me - recent examples of that being the autism/mmr threads.

1149 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 5:02:09pm

Bedtime for me - see y'all later.

1150 Salem  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 5:02:35pm

re: #1148 Jimmah

I agree - in practice though, they are always going to come up - not that they are always misused of course. Sometimes they can be appropriate in a conversation. It's when people use them to dismiss masses of statistically accrued scientific data that annoys me - recent examples of that being the autism/mmr threads.

I forgot to add that people do tell each other stories and pass them along. And the anecdotes a liable to be true a good percentage of the time. But then it's an easy thing to preface any contention with "My Uncle Jimmy..." and create a thin veil of credibility, and who is to know except people who you don't expect to hear/read it? It doesn't constitute proof of anything by itself and therefore is of limited use in an argument.

1151 tyree  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 6:41:10pm

re: #1090 charles_martel

And you call people who support drug cartels fine, upstanding citizens? Answer the question, why should anyone support illegal behavior that has directly led to Mexico turning into a war zone? Why would decent, caring human beings do that?

1152 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 6:46:37pm

re: #1151 tyree

I think you should ask yourself what decent human being would continue to insist on the perpetuating the black market that fosters more crime, not less.

I'm reminded of the arguments against conceal and carry laws. It was going to create the wild west if more people were allowed to carry guns. It didn't. Allowing more personal liberty created a safer society.

Likewise- abolishing the black market by decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana would decrease the level of crime as it did with the repeal of Prohibition.

1153 paradox42  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 6:48:41pm

re: #1151 tyree

And you call people who support drug cartels fine, upstanding citizens? Answer the question, why should anyone support illegal behavior that has directly led to Mexico turning into a war zone? Why would decent, caring human beings do that?

So is the girl who used drugs to numb the pain of being raped for 3 years by her father a horrible person? Should she do more time for possesion than "daddy" did for raping her?

Seriously, do you think everybody who picks up drugs is an evil heartless bastard?

1154 tyree  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 6:50:46pm

re: #1108 paradox42

Incomplete, Paradox. Some of the oil money goes to fund terrorism. All drug money goes to supporting the illegal drug trade. Why do people support the drug cartels with their drug money and why should we support them? Let them give their money to the American Cancer Society instead of the local pusher and I would gladly support the legalization of drugs. Until the drug users start acting like decent human beings, I won't submit to their demands for legalization.

I will never tolerate the those who support the drug cartels. Why do some of you support them?

1155 tyree  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 6:52:16pm

re: #1153 paradox42

No.
I have answered your question, now answer mine. Why should we support people who give their money to the murderous gangs in Mexico?

1156 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 6:55:42pm

re: #1155 tyree

You assume everyone gets their weed from a cartel.

This is the first flaw in your reasoning.

1157 paradox42  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 6:56:01pm

re: #1155 tyree

No answer I can give you will satisfy you. You've made up your mind. I can only hope nobody dear to you starts using drugs. For their sake and yours.

1158 tyree  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 10:17:04pm

re: #1157 paradox42

B.S. You can give me an answer. It doesn't have to "satisfy" me. Just answer the question. Why do drug users knowingly support the drug cartels?

No one dear to me would ever start using illegal drugs.My family cares for other people way to much to hurt them by supporting the illicit drug trade.

Sharmuta - actually, many illicit drug users have convinced themselves that their pusher doesn't get their weed from the cartels. It's always "the other guy" who is smoking the truckloads that the coyotes and tunnel diggers smuggle across the boarder. They delude themselves into thinking that their pusher is an honest, ethical business man. People are buying those billions in drugs and they don't care about what happens to other human beings because of their addiction. Why don't the drug users ask to inspect the pipeline to make sure contains only organically grown domestic products? Do pushers actually give tours like that?

Go ahead, it's still a free country. Support what you want. For myself, I try to never reward bad behavior. You would think that would not be a controversial choice.

1159 SFGoth  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 10:38:50pm

re: #1158 tyree

B.S. You can give me an answer. It doesn't have to "satisfy" me. Just answer the question. Why do drug users knowingly support the drug cartels?

No one dear to me would ever start using illegal drugs.My family cares for other people way to much to hurt them by supporting the illicit drug trade.

Sharmuta - actually, many illicit drug users have convinced themselves that their pusher doesn't get their weed from the cartels. It's always "the other guy" who is smoking the truckloads that the coyotes and tunnel diggers smuggle across the boarder. They delude themselves into thinking that their pusher is an honest, ethical business man.

Are you that stupid stupid and set on being a curmudgeon that you cannot accept that the vast majority of marijuana is grown in this country, esp. the good stuff? It's one of this country's largest cash crops. It's not the '70's anymore. This stuff is grown all over Northern California. Ever heard of the "Emerald Triangle" - it's near the Oregon border. Ever heard of Humboldt Green? I suppose you think Humboldt is in Mexico. Do you really think indoor hydro is being grown in Tijuana? Honestly, you're just, plain stupid. No, you're a fucking idiot.

1160 tyree  Tue, Apr 7, 2009 10:59:51pm

People who can't structure a logical, reasoned response based on facts usually resort to insults. SFGoth does not disappoint.

Supporting pushers supports murder, kidnapping, extortion, rape and beheading. The drug users know it and they don't care. Stop living in a fantasy world a face the reality. Billions of dollars come from someplace. Drug users should demand that their pusher allow them to document his or her entire supply chain, so they can see that all of their drugs come from "emerald triangle". Or just take his word for it, he's got to be an honest guy, he deals in illegal drugs.

If their pusher won't do that, they should boycott until they are sure they are not supporting the drug cartels. If they can do that and drive the cartels out of business, they have my vote.

And relax, I'm just one vote. You certainly won't hear many politicians sticking up for the victims of the cartels by attacking their cash flow. No cash, no bribes, no guns, no ammo. They instead will blame "the law", and excuse the criminal. That seems to be a popular position these days.

1161 neverquit  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 3:47:00am

re: #1160 tyree

The whole reason why the legalization issue is here is because of all the illegal activity surrounding it is unnecessary. If you want to end a major cash component of the Drug Cartels, it can be done with the stroke of the pen.

Many here would argue that there is too much money in this market, which is corrupting people in various law enforcement, law, and money laundering industries, so much so, that it will never be made legal....They all have jobs and are cashing in because it's illegal.

Much of what you state in post#1160 demonstrates how little you know about what occurs in the process. Ignorance, not stupidity, but for people who do understand, you comes across as naive and sheltered.

No one dear to me would ever start using illegal drugs.My family cares for other people way to much to hurt them by supporting the illicit drug trade.

I wish you all the best and I hope no one dear to you ever uses illegal drugs...."But for the Grace of God goes you, imho.

Let's just hope those dear to you stick to the most addictive legal drug out there, alcohol. Alcohol kills thousands annually. Alcohol destroys families with abuse, bankruptcy divorce every day...It's a multi-billion dollar industry, with businesses that exist get to people off of alcohol, and increase alcohol sales. In your mind, that's somehow easily acceptable over marijuana simply because it's legal.......I find that entirely hypocritical on your part, especially in light of the history of Prohibition, that is an easy thing to research, and frankly, shame on you for not being able to recognize something so blatantly obvious, and chastise those here who are questioning whether current marijuana laws should be changed and done more in tune with alcohol.

1162 neverquit  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 3:49:16am

re: #1158 tyree

Go ahead, it's still a free country. Support what you want. For myself, I try to never reward bad behavior. You would think that would not be a controversial choice.

You do if you support legalized alcohol. That's the major issue, you seem to somehow equate that if it's legal, you are excused from all moral questioning, and that tyree, is a load of shit on your part.

1163 charles_martel  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 5:49:46am

re: #1151 tyree

And you call people who support drug cartels fine, upstanding citizens? Answer the question, why should anyone support illegal behavior that has directly led to Mexico turning into a war zone? Why would decent, caring human beings do that?

Much of the weed here in the US is grown locally in California by Americans. No cartel. And I am not supporting illegal behavior, I are here to support making it legal and therefore eliminating the drug cartels. You answer me this: would you call people who support terrorists fine upstanding citizens? Well, every time you fill up your car or truck, you are putting money in terrorists hands through Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations. I guess you're not a decent, caring human being.

1164 charles_martel  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 5:54:30am

re: #1158 tyree

You seem to be projecting your ignorance on others. When I used to smoke, I knew who grew it. I went to college with a guy who's parents were growers in Humboldt County, CA. Later, I got weed from a friend who grew it himself in Jamaica. No cartels, no nothing. Stop generalizing and spouting false moralizing propaganda.

1165 tyree  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 6:42:25am

Charles Martel:
"Much of the weed here in the US is grown locally in California by Americans. No cartel. And I am not supporting illegal behavior, I are here to support making it legal and therefore eliminating the drug cartels."

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If making it legal will hurt the cartels then smoking it now helps them.

Once again, those poorly equipped to debate a subject resort to personal attacks. I am not attacking you position. I just want someone to answer the question. Why support wrong behavior?

1166 tyree  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 6:44:31am

re: #1162 neverquit

Actually, I never mentioned alcohol, other writers just assume they know what I think because I asked a question.

1167 tyree  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 6:53:02am

Neverquit.
"The whole reason why the legalization issue is here is because of all the illegal activity surrounding it is unnecessary. If you want to end a major cash component of the Drug Cartels, it can be done with the stroke of the pen."

A group of people start breaking the law.
The lawbreakers sell people illegal drugs.
The drug users send billions of dollars to the criminals, who murder people.
And the only answer it to legalize drugs.

All I am saying is that the drug consumers can fight the cartels by giving up their habit. They don't , and they won't. And that is why I won't support them.

1168 charles_martel  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 6:54:48am

re: #1165 tyree

It seems that you are the one poorly equipped to debate. If you had read my post, you would see that I had only bought from known sources. I knew for a fact where the pot was grown. I did not support cartels. Why do you insist on fabricated falsehoods?

1169 tyree  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 7:08:06am

Charles Martel:
At which point did I attack you and your personal drug habits? I didn't. I fabricated no falsehoods.

1170 Yashmak  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 7:14:13am

re: #1104 MissLL

I'm not making bets.

Your words: "I'll bet that none of them smoked pot"

You can pick one or two out of all the people I named, but you can't say that ALL of them were under mind-numbing influences.

So? I can show that it's likely some of them did, and were still brilliant anyway, which is all I intended to show.

Or that many more I can name were under some influence like that.

Again, so? I imagine that for every creative mind you come up with that didn't use some form of narcotic, someone here can come up with a name of a creative mind that DID use some form of narcotic.

For the record, I've read biographies of Stevenson and Twain (two of them) - have you?

I've can make unverifiable claims too, and they don't impress me. . .but if you want to trust my answer, in the case of Twain I've read a couple biographies, and the majority of his body of work. I've read much of Stevenson's work, but not his biography. Not that it has any bearing on our conversation anyway.

To insult me by saying that I'm not being logical doesn't help to drive home your point very well.

And posting illogical arguments doesn't drive home your point very well. Responding to people who point out the logical fallacies in your arguments with additional illogical arguments doesn't drive home your point very well either.

1171 charles_martel  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 7:14:28am

re: #1169 tyree

You attacked me and millions of your fellow citizens by saying things like this:

Supporting pushers supports murder, kidnapping, extortion, rape and beheading. The drug users know it and they don't care.

And that comment is pure BS, and extremely insulting.

1172 Yashmak  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 7:26:57am

re: #1115 MissLL

So, you can say for sure, studies and all, that a great deal of marijuana smokers aren't ruining their lives? And that it isn't a gateway drug? .

By that logic, we should make anything anyone uses that might possibly be ruining their lives illegal. That would necessarily include tobacco, alcohol, and who knows what else.

Again, I'm not saying that alcohol is not dangerous either (where did you get that?).

But you apparently believe it should be kept illegal, and that possession/sale of it should be a crime, while alcohol which is at least as dangerous remains legal? It's not just.

re: #1151 tyree

And you call people who support drug cartels fine, upstanding citizens? Answer the question, why should anyone support illegal behavior that has directly led to Mexico turning into a war zone? Why would decent, caring human beings do that?

It's the illegal nature of marijuana that has led to the formation of these drug cartels. In a way, keeping the laws the way they are now, is keeping these cartels in business. . .in the same way prohibition gave organized crime a huge boost in the early part of the 20th century. This is a historical FACT. You want to see that violence end? Those cartels broken? The surest and quickest way would be to legalize the substances they traffic.

1173 tyree  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 7:37:07am

Charles said, "re: #1171 charles_martel

Sorry Charles, no BS there. The drug "consumer" supports the drug cartels. They know they support it, and they don't care. Perhaps they don't know they support the cartels and if they only knew that drug sales killed people they would stop? There is some royal BS.

If you are one of those rare people who knows that your pipeline isn't part of the the illicit drug trade and you took offense to me pointing out an obvious truth about millions of other drug consumers, I am sorry. But the drug money does not come from comic book sales, it comes from drug sales. One of those drugs is weed.

1174 Yashmak  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 7:38:04am

re: #1169 tyree

Charles Martel:
At which point did I attack you and your personal drug habits? I didn't. I fabricated no falsehoods.

By making blanket statements about folks who use (or have used) marijuana (which you have done at least a half dozen times, probably more, on this very string of commentary), you did indeed include Charles Martel. Maybe you should go back and read your own comments if you can't remember what you said.

1175 Yashmak  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 7:41:45am

re: #1173 tyree

Sorry Charles, no BS there. The drug "consumer" supports the drug cartels. They know they support it, and they don't care. Perhaps they don't know they support the cartels and if they only knew that drug sales killed people they would stop? There is some royal BS.

Keeping marijuana illegal does more to support the drug cartels than any user. You want historical precedent? Prohibition, and the monetary shot in the arm it provided to smuggling, murder, extortion, and organized crime in general in the USA and Canada in the early 1900's.

1176 SFGoth  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 7:58:07am

re: #1160 tyree

People who can't structure a logical, reasoned response based on facts usually resort to insults. SFGoth does not disappoint.

Supporting pushers supports murder, kidnapping, extortion, rape and beheading. The drug users know it and they don't care. Stop living in a fantasy world a face the reality. Billions of dollars come from someplace. Drug users should demand that their pusher allow them to document his or her entire supply chain, so they can see that all of their drugs come from "emerald triangle". Or just take his word for it, he's got to be an honest guy, he deals in illegal drugs.

Dude, you are wholly inventing your premise and not responding to anything I said about the cash crop value of U.S. marijuana. You hate weed and you'll invent any fallacy you can, like that the thousands of tons that are sold in this country are all trucked over from Mexico. I demand that you censure anyone who drinks tequila. The cartels are invested in tequila too.

Charles, is there a way for me to filter this guy?

1177 SFGoth  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 8:00:48am

re: #1165 tyree

Charles Martel:
"Much of the weed here in the US is grown locally in California by Americans. No cartel. And I am not supporting illegal behavior, I are here to support making it legal and therefore eliminating the drug cartels."

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If making it legal will hurt the cartels then smoking it now helps them.

How does smoking American-grown marijuana help Mexican cartels? Me thinks we have someone who's just pulling our chain because no one could really be this dumb.

1178 tyree  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 8:05:52am

SFgoth
Now you threaten me with filtering! Predictable.
And you respond to my question, not by answering mine but by demanding that I answer yours. By the way, what was your question?

Mine is, why should I support people who support drug cartels?

For a case study on legalization and what it does to cartels, look into the legalization of prostitution in Australia an how that did nothing to stamp out organized crime in that country.

Stop consuming the crime first, drive the cartels out of business, and then we will legalize drugs. Simple, impossible. Because to most drug consumers, the crime doesn't matter.

1179 charles_martel  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 8:20:16am

re: #1178 tyree

Mine is, why should I support people who support drug cartels?

That fact of the matter is, by insisting that pot remain illegal, you are helping to support the cartels. You can't stop millions of Americans from consuming pot, but you can support legalization, which is the only way to destroy the cartels. You have apparently made your choice.

Oh, and BTW, cocaine is the main cash crop and import of the cartels. The money made from coke makes pot money look like chump change.

1180 SFGoth  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 9:15:36am

re: #1178 tyree

SFgoth
Now you threaten me with filtering! Predictable.
And you respond to my question, not by answering mine but by demanding that I answer yours. By the way, what was your question?


LOL, my question was, given how big marijuana is as a cash crop in the United States of America, what is your evidence that most of what is consumed comes from Mexico? You see Tyree, everyone's been hammering you for this glib statement, upon which your premise rests, but you have not produced any evidence or even well-thought out support. Instead, you just proclaim it because you don't like weed. Well, you've bored me to tears with this rather childish position, so I'm just going to ignore you until you take your thumb out of your mouth and wash your blankie.

1181 Yashmak  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 10:48:08am

I have a question for you tyree.

If, tomorrow, marijuana were legalized, would you still consider marijuana users criminals, animals as you have described them earlier? I mean, if it does get legalized, users would no longer be 'consuming the crime', they'd be consuming a legal substance. Right?

1182 Yashmak  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 10:53:55am

re: #1178 tyree


Stop consuming the crime first, drive the cartels out of business, and then we will legalize drugs. Simple, impossible. Because to most drug consumers, the crime doesn't matter.

The current laws (which have cost us untold billions) have not stopped the consumption of the substance. They have not driven the cartels otu of business. The cartels exist for the very reason that these substances are illegal, and therefore the demand cannot be filled by regulated, legitimate businesses (which would obviously pay taxes into the system).

If, as you say, your solution is impossible, then it makes NO SENSE to continue arguing so stridently in favor of it.

1183 neverquit  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 12:43:17pm

re: #1166 tyree

What difference does it make in the debate who mentioned or did not mention alcohol. Alcohol is a reasonable comparison to make, and that is why I mentioned it. Comparing and contrasting is a standard tactic in debate and analysis.

1184 neverquit  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 12:45:01pm

re: #1167 tyree

All I am saying is that the drug consumers can fight the cartels by giving up their habit. They don't , and they won't. And that is why I won't support them.

Not going to happen. Ever. Just like during Prohibition.

What is your stance regarding alcohol? Are you a drinker? A simple yes or no is all that is necessary.

1185 neverquit  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 12:58:19pm

re: #1165 tyree

I just want someone to answer the question. Why support wrong behavior?

People have been answering the question, repeatedly, over and over. You simply do not like the response.

It is my position that in your mind, if it's legal, it's ok to support it, both as a citizenship question and as a moral question. Your simply taking the stance that you feel smoking weed is wrong because it is illegal. Plain and simple, and that is wrong headed thinking. Period. imho.

When you can morally justify why it is you support alcohol, which is a heavily addictive drug, physically and mentally, kills thousands annually, destroys thousands of families annually, mames thousands annually; over marijuana, I will listen and believe you are thinking objectively. If you rest singularly on the legality issue, then there really is no use in further discussion.

1186 charles_martel  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 1:22:05pm

re: #1185 neverquit

yep. It's called a circular argument.

Tyree sez: pot shouldn't be made legal because it's illegal.

not an argument at all.

1187 Yashmak  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 3:44:45pm

re: #1186 charles_martel

yep. It's called a circular argument.

Tyree sez: pot shouldn't be made legal because it's illegal.

not an argument at all.

And people noting that and calling him on it probably has a lot to do with his silence on the matter. . . or it could just be he's no longer following the topic.

1188 tyree  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 10:35:21pm

Charles Martel said, "the fact of the matter is, by insisting that pot remain illegal, you are helping to support the cartels."

I never said I insisted on pot remaining illegal. I have actually written in these comments that I support legalization of some illicit drugs. Do a find of "tyree" and read the posts. What I insist is that drug users show maturity before I give in to their demands for legalization.
Is that too much to ask?

1189 tyree  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 10:42:53pm

re: #1181 Yashmak

An animal is a living creature who has no "soul" as it were. It simply responds to stimuli. Drug users don't think past their own wants. They want drugs, so they buy them. They don't think about the murders, the rapes and the beheadings that their habit supports. If marijuana was legalized tomorrow, those same people would continue to ignore the suffering of others for their own selfish gain. Animal may be too strong a word, but it was the best I could come up with in a hurry, and it is not far off the mark.

I had a student once who embedded rusty razor blades in the base of his marijuana plants to maim those who would attempt to take them. A real prize of a human being.

1190 tyree  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 10:48:35pm

re: #1182 Yashmak

You probably didn't read all of my posts. I very carefully stated that I would not support legalization until drug users stopped using their drugs out of concern for their fellow man. I didn't write half the stuff other posters said I wrote.

Now that position is not going to happen, but I won't support bad behavior. I would rather loose on the right side than fight for the wrong.

1191 tyree  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 10:51:59pm

neverquit said, "It is my position that in your mind..."

That is called a Straw Man argument. You set up a false argument as mine, in this case, even pretending to reach into my mind to get it, and then argue against your false argument, instead of what I wrote.

10 points off.

1192 tyree  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 10:53:16pm

re: #1186 charles_martel

See previous post about straw men.

1193 tyree  Wed, Apr 8, 2009 11:08:53pm

re: #1187 Yashmak

Wrong again.
I didn't respond because today was a work day, followed by dinner with a friend. I'm back now, and my responses have been sent.

Please keep all remarks directed toward my comments, not at me. Personal attacks loose lots of points in a debate.

I mentioned to my boss that someone in a blog comment called me an "idiot" and she laughed and said, "they don't know you very well, do they?" That was another cool part in a very good day.
Everyone have a great day.

"It is better to have the right enemies, than the wrong friends."
tyree

1194 tyree  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 6:17:05am

re: #1169 tyree

I see that this remark earned me a "-3" mark.

A simple statement of non-refutable fact gets -3 votes. Such a sad reflection on the commenters.

1195 Yashmak  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 7:30:01am

re: #1189 tyree

An animal is a living creature who has no "soul" as it were.

Nope, that's not the meaning of the word. The primary meaning, under which we ALL qualify (even you) per Merriam-Webster:

" any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation"

It simply responds to stimuli. Drug users don't think past their own wants. They want drugs, so they buy them.

You want food, so you buy it. You want money, so you get a job. By this description, you simply respond to stimuli as well.

They don't think about the murders, the rapes and the beheadings that their habit supports.

You don't think about the murders, rapes, and beheadings that each gallon of gas you pump supports, or the exploitation of child labor that your tennis shoe purchase supports. Again, this is an argument that can be equally levelled at anyone, drug user or not.

I had a student once who embedded rusty razor blades in the base of his marijuana plants to maim those who would attempt to take them. A real prize of a human being.

And I've known people who trained their dogs to high levels of aggression, so that anyone who came in their yard would be attacked.

I very carefully stated that I would not support legalization until drug users stopped using their drugs out of concern for their fellow man.

Again, utter nonsense. There would be no point in legalizing it if no one used it. We could just stop paying for enforcement at that point. Do you think before typing this stuff?

That is called a Straw Man argument.

You would know, as you've been littering this commentary with your own straw men for quite some time now.

I mentioned to my boss that someone in a blog comment called me an "idiot" and she laughed and said, "they don't know you very well, do they?" That was another cool part in a very good day.

Then again, your boss probably hasn't read your comments on this topic.

A simple statement of non-refutable fact gets -3 votes. Such a sad reflection on the commenters

You attacked all drug users, present and past, in the comment in which you referred to drug users as animals. There, your 'fact' has been refuted (as it already had been numerous times). THAT'S why you got -3 votes.

1196 SFGoth  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 8:19:46am

www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,6967,00.html#7_0

1197 tyree  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 12:45:41pm

re: #1195 Yashmak

Wow, great job of taking a bunch of quotes out of context and pretending to refute them.

Drug users don't think past their own wants. They want drugs, so they buy them. They don't think about the murders, the rapes and the beheadings that their habit supports.

This is true, and all of your misdirection cannot change that.

And there would be no purpose to legalizing drugs once everyone drives the cartels out of business by quitting for four years? Yes, there would be a purpose. The drug users would prove that they are people who care about the evil that their money does. As it stands, the drug users demonstrate every day that they care more for their drugs than their fellow man, which is sad, pathetic and criminal.

"You don't think about the murders, rapes, and beheadings that each gallon of gas you pump supports, or the exploitation of child labor that your tennis shoe purchase supports."

What is it about people that leads them to believe they can read my mind? Must be the weed :)

Actually, now you see where I am going with all of this. If boycotting Saudi oil or tennis shoe manufacturers is a good idea, why don't we boycott illicit drugs to support the poor people of Mexico? It's a great idea. I already started, a long, long time ago.

1198 neverquit  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 4:53:34pm

re: #1191 tyree

neverquit said, "It is my position that in your mind..."

That is called a Straw Man argument. You set up a false argument as mine, in this case, even pretending to reach into my mind to get it, and then argue against your false argument, instead of what I wrote.

10 points off.

Out of all my posts to you, this is what you choose to address? That says a lot to me about you.

It is not a "straw man" argument. It is called my opinion of your position based on what you have said. I did not "reach into your mind", I base my opinion of you on what you have posted. Face it, you do not have a reasonable defense of your position. Your simply clinging to a mindset that is emotional. Otherwise, there are many other points in my posts you could have addressed, but cannot. It is my position you have ego issues.

1199 neverquit  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 4:55:58pm

re: #1190 tyree

I won't support bad behavior. I would rather loose on the right side than fight for the wrong.

Do you drink alcoholic beverages on a regular basis? Yes or no? It's a simple question you refuse to answer because of your ego.

1200 neverquit  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 5:15:41pm

re: #1197 tyree

If boycotting Saudi oil or tennis shoe manufacturers is a good idea, why don't we boycott illicit drugs to support the poor people of Mexico? It's a great idea. I already started, a long, long time ago.

I am not in support of boycotting Saudi oil, nor tennis shoes. Nor do I believe that by filling up my gas tank that I am supporting supporting the Saudi Government. The Saudi Royals who are in control and the Saudi people who support them, are responsible for the actions of their government and their cultural traditions.

Same goes for tennis shoes.

I do not believe that because I buy goods and services from foreign nations who have a different culture, different norms of behavior, traditions, religions etc., that I am in some kind of defacto support of them.

The computer you are using to post here, has plastics, and other basic elements that originate from all kinds of places, by the way.

By legalizing marijuana, millions of dollars could be taken away from Cartels. It's not a difficult formula.

Do you drink alcoholic beverages? Yes or no. Let's see how consistent you are.

1201 neverquit  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 5:25:12pm

re: #1194 tyree

You seem overly concerned with the comment rating system. It's funny when you deduct points from others at the end of your posts.

1202 neverquit  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 5:27:57pm

re: #1195 Yashmak

Not a lot of productive work going on in that office either (some moral issues there), or perhaps they were discussing LGF posts during a 2 martini lunch?

1203 tyree  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 5:56:30pm

re: #1199 neverquit

Actually, it's a question I refuse to answer because we are talking about illegal drugs.

Admit Nothing.
Deny Everything.
Make Counter Accusations.

Standard Liberal Operating Procedure.

1204 tyree  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 5:57:57pm

re: #1198 neverquit

And it is my position that people who use illegal drugs are supporting murder. Which topic do you think means more to the fate of the nation?

1205 tyree  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 6:00:15pm

re: #1201 neverquit


I make one comment about the rating system and that is "overly concerned"? The 10 points off harkens back to the "straw man" argument. That is how much we used to take off when I was judging debates for using that fallacy in a debate competition.

1206 neverquit  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 6:08:13pm

re: #1203 tyree

That is a really weak response.....-10 points for you.

It is my position, based on your refusal to answer a simple question, that you drink alcohol. Therefore, it is a hypocritical stance you are taking. The behavior you accuse others of doing as wrongful, you do and support yourself - and probably do on other issues outside of drugs as well. Ever break a speed limit? Very dangerous behavior? Why do it?

If you responded that you don't drink, I would simply take you at your word. I would readily admit that you are an exceptionally well behaved person, who strives to lead a life that does not exhibit bad behavior on many issues. And I would readily admit that you are more disciplined than I.

However, there would still be a large part of my cynical mind and instinct that would remind me to keep the possibility that you would not be telling the truth.

Personally, I don't care either way. I'm no saint.

1207 tyree  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 6:11:56pm

re: #1202 neverquit

Sorry, another wrong guess based on ignorance. Our group has delivered on-time and under budget for over a decade.

To Neverquit, Martel, SFGoth and Yashmak - Whatever. As Winston Churchill said, "You have enemies, good. That means that at least once in your life you have stood up for something."

I spent this time standing up for the poor victims of the drug cartels in Mexico. Are you proud of the way you spent this slice of your life?

1208 neverquit  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 6:18:27pm

re: #1204 tyree

The drugs themselves are not the cause of the murder. People are. It is the profit motive behind it.

I see no proof from history that making a drug illegal makes the world a safer place. None. Nor do I see any proof that by making a drug legal the world is a safe place. People are responsible for their behavior, whether they kill some with alcohol, or cocaine, or any other drug. I challenge you to present your argument to people who lost a loved one due to alcohol or any other drug. The result is the same, that cannot be denied. Just because one is legal and one is not, does not make it any better or worse. It's the same.

ps - you made several comments about the rating system, and so have I, to you.

1209 neverquit  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 6:22:00pm

re: #1207 tyree

I spent this time standing up for the poor victims of the drug cartels in Mexico. Are you proud of the way you spent this slice of your life?

So have I, and I am proud. Make marijuana legal and deal a huge blow to a major source of income for the cartels. It may not eliminate the cartels, but they will feel an impact, and it will negatively impact their operations. That is a fact you deny. Are you proud of that slice of your life?

1210 tyree  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 6:23:03pm

re: #1206 neverquit

If you had ever taken a class in debate you might have a more educated opinion. Note that that is not a personal attack, just a statement of fact.

By the way, the "that man is a hypocrite" is a feeble attempt at reason It is called "arguemntum ad homenium" or "argument to the man"

[Link: philosophy.lander.edu...]

That would lose the whole ball of wax for you in a real debate. In other words, if your doctor smoked cigarettes but told you to quit, would it be wise to ignore his advice? You decide. As I said, Whatever. My father told me in the 60's that I would find myself laughing at the "generation gap" when I got to his age. He was right, as usual.

1211 tyree  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 6:27:51pm

re: #1209 neverquit

"Make marijuana legal and deal a huge blow to a major source of income for the cartels. It may not eliminate the cartels, but they will feel an impact, and it will negatively impact their operations. That is a fact you deny."

Read what I wrote, slowly and carefully. I never denied that. I never mentioned that, you are putting other peoples arguments onto me and then fighting against my imagined transgressions.

My plan wouldn't hurt their operations, it would eliminate them, and lead to eventual legalization. The only thing that keeps it from working is the fact that drug users won't stop, not even if it kills other people. I wonder if they are proud of that?

1212 neverquit  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 6:32:35pm

re: #1210 tyree

Spare me that tact.

I'm here to read about this issue because I am interested in it. I'm interested in what others say about it. I am also confrontational by nature and I'm here to tell you how I feel about what you post, whether or not YOU feel I am effective is meaningless to me and will not impact my style or opinion. I am posting here because I can, and have an opinion. I am entitled to my opinion of what you say, as you are of what I say.

What I see, in this post about from you about "debate"? I see that you want to steer the discussion away the topic at hand because your own hypocrisy.

This is not a formal debate by the way, and I would never engage in a formal debate as a group or individual. I find the whole structure, rules, time limits et.al rather useless.

The simple fact is that if you drink, you support the legalization of alcohol. Alcohol murders people every day. As you read this, some drunk is hurting another person. Does that make you a bad person?

1213 neverquit  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 6:36:06pm

re: #1211 tyree

Read what I wrote, slowly and carefully. I never denied that. I never mentioned that, you are putting other peoples arguments onto me and then fighting against my imagined transgressions.

I have read carefully what you have written. Your "plan" is not a reasonable one, and one not based on the nature of human behavior, nor from the lessons of history. Your ideas, or plans, are needlessly Utopian, and do more harm than good, imho.

1214 tyree  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 6:51:52pm

re: #1213 neverquit

Which of course, doesn't change the fact that you were responding to things I didn't say.

1215 neverquit  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 7:13:47pm

re: #1214 tyree

It is my opinion you are in denial of your own posts. Telling me I am not good at formal debate will not change my opinion of what you have posted.

Again, based on YOUR posts, it is my personal opinion that your ideas are needlessly Utopian in nature,,,, and inconsistent. Based on YOUR lack of response at times, your positions may (most likely) be hypocritical. Or, you could simply be in denial of (or too egotistical to admit) some behaviors you do, and have criticized others for.

Whether or not you feel this is a personal attack is not relevant to me. I am confrontational by nature. I do not shy away from attacks on me, nor do I hold back on others. If I find a position hypocritical, I call people out on it. I do not tell others that their position is weakened by personally attacking me. I respect them more for fighting back with all they have.

I find being inconsistent in thoughts and deeds more reprehensible as compared to a simple personal insult.

1216 tyree  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 10:00:57pm

re: #1215 neverquit

Except, Neverquit, I never attacked you. So your "confrontational nature" was wasted attacking me, when you should have been trying to attack my position. You and the other, on the other hand, attacked me personally, repeatedly and ineffectually for dozens of posts.

Admit nothing.
Deny Everything.
Make Counter Accusations.

Is a great way to win an election, I guess, but it is not a good path to reasoned debate.

You said, "This is not a formal debate by the way, and I would never engage in a formal debate as a group or individual. I find the whole structure, rules, time limits et.al rather useless."

It can be and it should be. Debate has the highest reason quotient, and the lowest emotion quotient of human discourse. An argument has the highest emotion and the least reason. You like the emotion, I like the reason. It's Sparta vs Athens all over again.
You keep trying to make the discussion about me, and it's not. It's about people who support the drug trade and their inability to take responsibility for their actions, which lead to the murder of hundreds of people.

1217 tyree  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 10:03:57pm

re: #1215 neverquit

Your opinion is lacking the support of hard evidence. As such it is no more substantial than the belief some people have in creationism.

1218 tyree  Thu, Apr 9, 2009 10:22:49pm

Neverquit said, "Based on YOUR lack of response at times, your positions may (most likely) be hypocritical."

and then you say

"I find being inconsistent in thoughts and deeds more reprehensible as compared to a simple personal insult."

Show me the inconsistent thoughts and deeds in what you know about me, not in what you believe I might be like beyond the alias I use online.

Once again, don't try to make the discussion about the speaker, attack the message, not the messenger. Attacking the messenger may win an election, but it is no way to arrive at the best way to handle a problem.

1219 tyree  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 7:04:00am

neverquit said, "It is my opinion you are in denial of your own posts. Telling me I am not good at formal debate will not change my opinion of what you have posted."

1) Don't stick to uninformed opinions when you can go for the facts.

2) I never said you we not good a formal debate. That is how you interpreted what I meant from what I actually wrote. What I wrote was a critique of your argument. You took it personally, why?

1220 neverquit  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 10:39:53am

re: #1216 tyree

Except, Neverquit, I never attacked you. So your "confrontational nature" was wasted attacking me, when you should have been trying to attack my position. You and the other, on the other hand, attacked me personally, repeatedly and ineffectually for dozens of posts.

Admit nothing.
Deny Everything.
Make Counter Accusations.

Is a great way to win an election, I guess, but it is not a good path to reasoned debate.

You said, "This is not a formal debate by the way, and I would never engage in a formal debate as a group or individual. I find the whole structure, rules, time limits et.al rather useless."

It can be and it should be. Debate has the highest reason quotient, and the lowest emotion quotient of human discourse. An argument has the highest emotion and the least reason. You like the emotion, I like the reason. It's Sparta vs Athens all over again.
You keep trying to make the discussion about me, and it's not. It's about people who support the drug trade and their inability to take responsibility for their actions, which lead to the murder of hundreds of people.

Childish tact of "you started it neverquit". Spare me the pseudo-intellectual "emotion/discourse" crap. This is yet another attempt to deflect the issue at hand, and to deflect your needlessly Utopian "plan".

The discussion I am having with you is about you and your nonsensical idea of "if everyone quits using weed, we can then make it legal."

That is the stupidest idea I have ever seen.

1221 neverquit  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 10:45:06am

re: #1217 tyree

Your opinion is lacking the support of hard evidence. As such it is no more substantial than the belief some people have in creationism.

re: #1218 tyree

Neverquit said, "Based on YOUR lack of response at times, your positions may (most likely) be hypocritical."

and then you say

"I find being inconsistent in thoughts and deeds more reprehensible as compared to a simple personal insult."

Show me the inconsistent thoughts and deeds in what you know about me, not in what you believe I might be like beyond the alias I use online.

Once again, don't try to make the discussion about the speaker, attack the message, not the messenger. Attacking the messenger may win an election, but it is no way to arrive at the best way to handle a problem.

I have asked repeatedly if you drink alcohol. You refuse to answer. For me, that is a "yes", and therefore, you are a hypocrite. It's not a difficult formula. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that you drink, and alchohol kills thousands annually, destroys families annually, and as you read this, a drunk is harming someone. Therefore, simply because it is legal, you feel your behavior is morally justified in comparison to those who may smoke weed. That is outright hypocrisy. If you feel that is an attack, that is your problem, not mine. I am not responsible for your feelings.

1222 neverquit  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 10:47:37am

re: #1219 tyree

neverquit said, "It is my opinion you are in denial of your own posts. Telling me I am not good at formal debate will not change my opinion of what you have posted."

1) Don't stick to uninformed opinions when you can go for the facts.

2) I never said you we not good a formal debate. That is how you interpreted what I meant from what I actually wrote. What I wrote was a critique of your argument. You took it personally, why?

I interpreted it incorrectly? I would say that you do not communicate in a direct and honest manner.

You are clearly not willing to face up to your own hypocrisy, nor are you willing to face up to your own posts. The issue lies within yourself, not me.

1223 Yashmak  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 11:39:12am

...

1224 Yashmak  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 11:46:40am

tyree,
You accuse me of taking complete statements of yours out of context, then do that exact thing to my reply. You accuse me of misdirection, then respond to rebuttals to your points with nothing but evasion and personal attacks. "must be the weed. . " Uh huh, the weed I stopped using over 8 years ago, which actually disproves your nonsensical point that drug dealers only care about their personal wants (getting more drugs). You have proven yourself a hypocrite, and utterly incapable of countering rebuttals to any point you have made. . .and ALL of your points have been thoroughly rebutted above by multiple different commentors, many of whom have taken the time to cite well documented studies, and historical evidence/precedent to support their claims. You, on the other hand, offer nothing but the cut & paste copying of the same statements over and over, refusing to provide any sort of counter to the rebuttals.

Face it, if this were a formal debate, you would have lost outright, hundreds of comments ago.

1225 Yashmak  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 11:53:00am

re: #1207 tyree


I spent this time standing up for the poor victims of the drug cartels in Mexico. Are you proud of the way you spent this slice of your life?

Yes. During this same period of time, while you did nothing but convince folks that you are incapable of reasoned debate, and are in fact a hypocrite, I completed the planning for production of a whole line of fuel tanks to extend the range of a model of Boeing airliners, shipped $200k worth of rotorblade components which I supervised the production of, destined for firefighting helicopters based in Oregon, and re-started a program making over-wing heater panels to aid in de-icing of some cargo aircraft. Oh, and I also heard my baby's (due on Oct 1) heartbeat for the first time. Pretty good for an 'animal', eh?

1226 tyree  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 5:25:15pm

Yashmak - You voluntarily put yourself in that group, I didn't.

1227 tyree  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 5:28:45pm

Neverquit said, "...nor are you willing to face up to your own posts."

As I pointed out more than once, I haven't written half of what you accuse me of, and you have no evidence that I am a hypocrite.

1228 tyree  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 5:31:18pm

Neverquit said, "The hypocrisy lies in the fact that you drink"

There is no "fact that I drink", there is only your imagined reality where I drink.

1229 tyree  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 5:39:56pm

re: #1224 Yashmak

The quote, "What is it about people that leads them to believe they can read my mind? Must be the weed :)"

Was obviously intended to be a joke, as identified by the smiley face. Sorry, I was trying to get you guys to lighten up a bit. What about the other part, why do you and the others believe you can read my mind?

1230 tyree  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 5:44:44pm

Neverquit - Let me address your alcohol/drugs comparison.
Alcohol consumption by person A does not directly contribute to drunk driving by person B.
However, all illegal drug sales that come from the cartels, directly contribute to murder, bribery, extortion and intimidation, as the cartels stay in power through those methods.

Note that I didn't make the alcohol example personal, this is the only way to handle things where the respondents don't even know each other.

1231 tyree  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 5:54:12pm

re: #1224 Yashmak

Please point out a counter point that rebuts my position. People have talked about the domestic production of weed. I have pointed that the drug consumer has no way to verify if the local pusher get his supply only from local sources.

Point/Counter point/point. In a formal debate, I would win that one.

Give me an example of a counterpoint that I did not respond to and we will see what I can do now that it is less busy in here.

1232 tyree  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 6:15:52pm

re: #1224 Yashmak

Yashmak said, "...refusing to provide any sort of counter to the rebuttals."

Please see my posts 920, 998, 1154, 1158, 1160 and 1165 where I did provide a point to the counter-point I was replying to. The only reason I didn't respond to everything is my time was short and I was more than a little outnumbered. That hardly translates into a "refusal".

And step outside of this topic for a second. Someone could, for example, say that, "Somali Pirates are animals" and they might be in the right ballpark, although the topic is a lot bigger than that. If someone said, " I resemble that remark!" That would not change the first statement into a personal attack.

Also, congratulations on your work on the Boeings, my father-in-law worked for Douglas for 43 years so aircraft are kind of a family thing with us.

1233 Sharmuta  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 6:22:09pm

It's real simple. Demanding others conform to your sensibilities when they're not infringing upon the rights of others is not only unAmerican, it's immoral. Just who do you think you are to judge these people? Just who do you think you are to demand conformity to your moral standards?!

Forgive the living hell out of them for not living up to your perfect example. It must be tiring to look down on so many from your high horse.

1234 Sharmuta  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 6:27:40pm

Tell me- someone, anyone(!), where in the Constitution it says anyone has the right to dictate their moral standards to the rest of us?

What gives you the right?!

1235 Sharmuta  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 7:01:32pm

And I mean it. All of you arguing from a "moral authority" standpoint- where in the Constitution do you have such a right?! Provided the rights of others are NOT infringed upon, what gives you the right? Nothing except your own sense of superiority. Frankly, I think you can shove it.

1236 Sharmuta  Fri, Apr 10, 2009 7:31:23pm

First they morally demonized the pot smokers, and I said nothing because I was not a pot smoker....

1237 tyree  Sat, Apr 11, 2009 1:04:45am

re: #1235 Sharmuta

So it is your position that the rights of the victims of the drug cartels have not been infringed? Consuming illegal drugs is hardly a "victimless crime", Mexico is more dangerous than Iraq and that violence spread north a long time ago. The rights of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is being infringed directly by the drug users, who willingly provide the money to support the drug cartels. They could stop, but they won't. If just 50% of the illegal drug consumers told their pushers, "Tell your boss, no more purchases until the killings stop." The killings would stop.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 64 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 165 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1