Marijuana legalize it?

What do you all think about marijuana being illegal in the US. I think its a waste of time and money to keep it off the streets. Its impossible to OD on THC and I dont remember the last time anyone sparked a joint and beat the hell out of their wives despite what "Reefer Madness" told you. I know some places are putting in sensible laws regarding possesion but I believe there should be a national decriminalization. I think an age restriction should be in place as with booze or cigs 18 or 21.
Anyone else have any thoughts about it? (yeah the little guy is hittin a joint)

There are already too many fat and stupid people in the U.S.
Passes the Magic Hat and Doritos...wanna watch Teletubbies?

is it against the law down there?????????. good for you. i say go after them all, lock up the people who wants to be druggies, marijuana is bad mmmmkay. all pot leads to is hugging, giggling and supporting Burger King

I don't see any distinction between it and alcohol. Seems to me like we ought to make it legal for those of a certain age and tax it, just like we do with booze.

It'd be the first time in my life I wouldn't bitch about paying taxes.

I'm extremely anti-drug and have never used illegal drugs in the past but I'd like to see it legalized and taxed to the moon.

Since New Orleans is struggling to come back, I'd legalize it in New Orleans first, this would cause a mass migration from San Fran to New Orleans.

"F" that. It's a drug. It's illegal, and needs to stay that way.

EDIT= Reason for statement..... The wife and I (son wasnt born yet) and a family member were rear ended bad in downtown Newark quite a few years back. A 35 yr old woman let her 15 year old BOYFRIEND drive her "first new car", he was stoned (and arrested), and 15.... Asshole coulda killed us.

Again I say "F" that. It's a drug. It's illegal, and needs to stay that way.

My 2cents
MGJ

Not to sound callous to your accident, but alcohol does the same thing - in FAR greater numbers.

Should we criminalize alcohol? Do you drink?

That's what I always come back to with this argument - is there any meaningful distinction between marijuana and alcohol? I sure don't see one.

Maybe somebody can come up with something I haven't heard before.

The problem is that most potheads drink and smoke. "But dude, I only drank a six pack!" Then you basically added another on top of that with the joint you smoked. I've had this arguement before, every time the person drinks and smokes yet they try to say that alcohol is far worse. Then I hear about that person getting arrested for DUI, losing their job because they thought the boss wouldn't notice the half shut, blood shot eyes, getting caught vandalizing street signs, sleepwalking into a friend's room, sitting on his computer chair thinking that he's sitting on the toilet then realizing a few gallons of the Hershey squirts which ends up spraying all over the room and is eventually spread all over the house. Man, was my friend pissed off!

I've been to Amsterdam many times when I lived in England. Being legal and sold through licensed 'Coffee Houses' keeps the illegal drugs off the streets.

The law here in the US is so archaic with regards to even drinking alchohol - compared to the rest of the world. I don't see if becoming legal here anytime soon. I say lower the drinking age to 18 too and sell booze on campus at Universities. Rather than the college kids all using fake IDs to buy alchohol off campus and ending up killing themselves on the roads.

I think they should legalize it too, its not stopping anyone.

And Rinky I agree with you wholeheartedly on the alcohol thing too. I am in college right now and the drinking age does absolutely zero to stop people under 21 from drinking. What it does do is make it so that we have to drink in secret for the most part, and we have to be very careful what we do in public. This usually leads to kids pregaming really hard and binge drinking even more, because if we go out, we want to be drunk enough when we leave to stay drunk for the entire night since its harder to drink once we go out. The only good thing where I go to school is that the age to get into the bars is 18 and alcohol is easily accessible once you are inside.

In the dorms, in the bathroom, on the ground-outside of their dorm window, on the 50 yard line, in the hallway...etc etc etc

Prohibition didn't turn out so well and was from 1918 to 1933??

If I could make a point it would be that people are people. Responsible ones don't smoke, drink get into accidents, etc. Irresponsible people are just that and it doesn't matter if "it" is illegal or not. Replace it with whatever you like. They don't care.

The problem is two fold:
1)What else would be decriminalized after weed or along with it? You know how stuff gets attached to good Bills and then you have crap. I don't want Acid, Meth, or Crack available at the Circle K and these are usually brought up because they are classified in the same group.
2)What is a fair taxation level for some legal product? Especially one that will grow anywhere you plant it. We've seen what they've done to Tobacco and the regulations surrounding it. Every time there is a new "Save the Children" Tax asked for from the Public they vote for it. What is the Cap on the Price and should it be legal for the Government to Tax a legal product so much that it may as well be illegal?

If there were a Vote tomorrow, I'd be in favor if only to relieve the Prison systems of the Mandatory sentenced Druggies who didn't hurt anyone in the process of the crime. As far as MGJ, the bastard who hit you should have seen some serious time, but being 15 he was probably just sent home to mommy to do it again at 18 when he'll be held accountable. :rolleyes: Hopefully next time he doesn't kill someone and if he does it's himself only.

If they lower the drinking age to 18, can I get a credit from the $250 fine I received for my fake ID in college?

Thing is, you can vote and serve your Country in war, i.e. "legally" kill another human being for your country, but you cannot legally drink in your country? it's BS.

I totally agree. Hell, add to that the fact that you can get married at 18, have kids at 18. But you can't buy a fricken beer! WTF.

Technically you can buy booze at 18 if you're in the military, correct?

If you're in another country, but that doesn't matter if you're in the military or not.

Face the facts here. The laws prohibiting weed in this country has NOTHING to do with how bad it is (or isn't) for you. It all has to do with money and special interests (THERE'S a big surprise).

Think of how big the DEA has gotten over the last 20-25 years. Their operating budget would be slashed in half, at least, if the marijuana was taken off the street. Yeah, they'll let that happen.

And that's just a portion of it.

There are good arguments for either side, but has anyone ever considered the consequences of a mass introduction of an extremely fast growing invasive weed into the ecosystem such as the cannabis plant?

Not to mention it changes sex via the air, so there is a chance of huge quantities of non-bud producing male plants

What's a good argument against it? I still haven't heard one yet.

I don't think it would spread rapidly through the ecosystem, as it's already being grown all over the country and there's yet to be a massive outbreak of the stuff.

I have a friend whose parents are government growers, those that are paid to grow the stuff are extremely good at what they do. Im sure if it was legalized, they would draft laws on who could legally grow and sell it in order to tax the hell out of it. I also don't feel that if they were to legalize it that harder drugs would be included. Many of them have much more intense affects on the user.

I'm for keeping it illegal, but just because I love hearing potheads cry rivers about how unjust the system is and how they have all the answers - if only someone would listen.

My favorite is when they bend over backwards to try to convince people about what an awesome fabric hemp is for clothing. Like people sit around complaining that there just aren't enough decent fabrics for shirts and pants these days.

Stoners turning into Vera Wang and Tommy Hilfiger all the sudden is hilarious. Talk about a trojen horse. :rolleyes:

I don't think it's the potheads pushing hemp as clothing as much as it is the tree huggers.

There are other uses for it. Food, paper, fuel, wood substitute, etc.

Why would potheads push it? You can't get high on hemp.

It's already so easy to get, that it might as well be legal. Save the prisons for the real criminals and generate some revenue for the government in the process. Legalizing it probably won't increase consumption that much...stoners now will be stoners if it's legal.

As for the person who got rearended by a stoned kid....well...it didn't really matter if it was legal or not, did it? Either way he was still stoned.

The only difference is that we don't need to waste public resources enforcing ineffective laws.

Maybe then, we can enforce the immigration laws instead.

Beats me, but they do. And these treehuggers are just stoners that think they know everything about whats best for us AND the environment.

You can't get high off of pot leaf bumper stickers and pot leaf t-shirts, but that doesn't stop stoners from loving those to pieces either.

With all the pollution other industries cause, really - where does the cotton fabric industry rank?

The only reason potheads care so much about hemp is because it comes from the same plant that weed comes from. Simple as that, and I honestly resent them peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining by pretending to be oh so concerned about what is really a non-issue.

If hemp came from something else, they wouldn't give a rats ass about hemp or it's "environmental" effects.

Not unless you're in another country with different laws, and US laws still in many cases supersede for the Soldier. I.E., Try smoking pot in Amsterdam while actively serving etc.

Most war time situations are now "Alcohol Free' too.

But when you get back, man... lookout. The booze is a flowing.

Hemp doesn't come from the same plant as marijuana.

The hemp plant is a similar type plant in the same family of plants, but they are different. You can't get high from hemp no matter how much you smoke of it.

I support the commercial use of hemp. It is a great renewable plant and can be used for many purposes.

I suspect many of the stoner and hippy types, don't even know what they are talking about.

However, I do not support the legalization of pot under any circumstances. It is not a harmless and benign drug as it is often portrayed in popular culture.

Yup, my Tilley hat is made with hemp.

Nor is alcohol. Should it be illegal too?

Alcohol is a depressant and puts a lot more people in rehab than pot ever did.

Then comes the 'pot is a gateway drug' argument.

I don't think so. I don't believe the single act of smoking pot is going to lead to use of other drugs. They way they do those surveys is this: They ask pot smokers if they've tried other drugs. When they say yes, they become a statistic that says pot smoking leads to usage of other drugs. Whether or not pot was around, these same people would have experimented.

Pot as a dangerous drug....NYMM, what's your fact basis on this one? I contend it's no more dangerous than alcohol. I've seen alcohol destroy lives and families. I've seen it too with pot, though to a far lesser degree. You can become physically addicted to alcohol. Addiction to pot is psycological, though I do agree you can get addicted to being high.

Thanks Andy, I was also formulating a response for NYMM.

Other than the possible risks associated with obtaining your smoke, the act of smoking period is not good for the lungs and could cause an increase in lung cancer. Nobody will ever know for sure because it is against the law to smoke for science unless you are already dying and in a State that allows for the use by the terminally ill.

I can't imagine the Government having to admit they were wrong and therefore they will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo. It won't be Federally wise, legal ever. Too much money at stake.

I know absolutely no one that has gone to rehab, had a major life issue, or killed anyone because of pot. It's the least dangerous substance we can get our hands on. PERIOD.

I know quite a few people whose lives have been completely ruined by Alcohol, Cocaine, etc. and no, pot was never a "gateway" drug or even a drug they used, as it is very weak compared to the effects of alcohol or the "harder" drugs.

Keeping it illegal is fine by me, but Cigarettes, alcohol, and model airplane glue etc. should all also be made illegal.

Problem isn't you sitting in your home getting high on the couch. The problem is when you are high as nuts and want to take a run to 7-11 and run into some innocent family.

That is why it will never be legal. People will not a) use it responsibly, and b) be responsible enough not to drive or use heavy a machinery, etc.

And yes, I understand about the abuses of alcohol.

The answer is none of us know what the effects of legalized pot would be. Other than a cash cow for the government to waste more money on pork projects.

Stone

Considering there are over twenty million Americans who smoke pot occasionally its silly it’s illegal.

Been cultivated around the world for thousands of years without problems. The native American Indians used it for lots of proposes and it grew wildly in places

Considering its a natural substance I can't see why it should be illegal? maybe we should ban Potatoes because they can make you fat.

AZ was the first state to legalize it, only to be in direct conflict w/ federal law..

Here\'s the story..

I enjoy a glass of wine with dinner because it pairs well with steak. I enjoy having a beer when I barebeque because I like the way it tastes.

I would say the majority of alcohol that is consumed is for purposes other than to alter ones state of conscious.

Can you tell me if anyone has ever smoked a joint with dinner because "they like the aroma"? Is there any reason to smoke pot other than to get high?

The argument that pot is like alcohol stops at the point of being able to find out how much someone has in their system. If you do have someone driving under the influence of alcohol with either the breathalyzer or blood test they can get a blood alcohol level. Since THC stays in your system a lot longer, there would be no way for them to test what your level is at the point you were contacted.

Lawyers would fight that the person had not smoked anything in days, that it was still in there system but they were not impaired.

I don't want to share the roads any more then we already do with people who are impaired from this. The DUI laws are already not enforced enough. There is no way that they will be able to make a drastic enough change to make people stop driving impaired.

There are good arguments for and against legalizing pot in the U.S.

Some people guarantee you that alcohol causes more social problems than smoking marijuana.

Others will guarantee that smoking pot will lead to hard drug use.

But in the end, the only guarantee in regards to marijuana is that it will never get any better than B.C. Bud, period.

In Illinois you do not have to show the amount just that it was in their system. This can be done with a urine test. Since it can be there for up to 30 days man duis would soar.

As an Ex-marijuana abuser, I have to say that I would still support the legalization of the "drug". I say legalize and put growing restrictions on it, then tax the ever living crap out of it, much like alcohol and tobacco.

It is a personal choice to smoke and as a ex-user I have to say it did not lead me to experiment with other types of "harder" drugs.

Also, and many may look down on this, I have driven while high and have never been involved in an accident and have never been pulled over. Many times I have driven on every type of road for long hours high. Stupid, yes. Would I do it again? No.

I say, why not?

Grow operations in BC are the biggest single drain on the tax payers dollar when it comes to dragging people through the legal system.

I live in a new sub division of homes with an average value of 500-600k, on my street alone there has been 3 grow op's busted in the past 3 years. Each grow takes 90 hours of investigation before a search warrant can be effected. the average size of the grow op's were 700 plants yielding about $64.000 per harvest which is around every 73 days.

First time offence punishment is 12 months house arrest with allowance to attend work and your kid's school functions etc. No hard jail time has been imposed for repeat offenders.

The majority of the control of the Grow op's are Asian gang's and Hell's Angels. we have had several violent grow-rip off's with gun battles in BC.

IMHO smoking it is no worse than drinking, no one can tell me otherwise. I see the problem with the prohibition and the illegal activity it sparks.

90% of all pot grown in BC is going south, the payment is seldom cash but Cocaine and hand guns.

I agree that when people compare marijuana to alcohol it is completely ridiculous and absurd. (For the most part, it is usually pot stoners who make such comparisons. Often as an argument to validate their pot usage).

I also find it absurd when pot stoners claim that marijuana is a natural substance and therefore it is harmless. If these stoners feel that everything "natural" is fine and harmless, let them go into the woods near their house and eat all the mushrooms and berries they find growing "naturally". Natural does not mean harmless... unless, of course, your brain is fried from smoking too much "nature".

Pot is a harmful substance. Maybe not in the short term, but long term use has many lasting and harmful effects on the body and the mind.

Does anyone really think that every major corporation does drug testing for new employees for the sole reason that pot is a controlled substance? Of course not. No employer wants a pothead working for their company. For the most part they are idiots. They become idiots because of their pot usage.

Long-term pot use completely destroys an individual's ambition. It makes most individuals anti-social. There is a reason why society has the term "burnout" to describe frequent pot users.

Every single one of us knows a frequent pot user and we all know that they will never reach their full potential in life because of their pot usage. Many of them have completely stunted their entire development because of their pot usage.

The public has been brainwashed by popular culture into thinking that pot usage is something that is basically benign. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that ... it is most definitely what is called a "gateway drug" and it is very harmful to the individual human psyche.

You would be extremely hard pressed to find any crack addict or heroin addict who told you they became curious and attracted to their initial narcotic usage because a beer or a glass of wine tasted really good.

What sometimes amazes me the most is the fact that many anti-cigarette smoking people are often pro-pot smoking people. Pot has many of the same harmful effects as cigarette smoking and many studies actually claim it is just as bad or far more hazardous for the body than cigarette smoking. Yet, these people prefer to disregard the harmful smoking effects of pot because pot gets you high... and basically makes you stupid. Maybe that is why some egregious and nefarious politicians support legal marijuana. A stupid and stoned population would be more malleable and easier to control.

Marijuana is a Schedule I drug.

The United States is also not the only country in the world that has outlawed marijuana usage. In fact most countries on earth have outlawed marijuana.

Society is already on a dangerous slippery slope regarding drug use. We have an extremely large percentage of the population on prescription drugs of one sort of another. Many for psychological and anti-depressant reasons. A large percentage of children in this country are dangerously on prescription medication including all sorts of stimulants and anti-depressants commonly used to treat things like attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorders. Much of it because we are becoming a lazy society and would rather medicate both adults and children.... instead of dealing with life itself.

This country needs less drugs, not more drugs. Both legal and illegal. (Less laziness through convenience would go a long a long way too).

Legalizing pot would be very dangerous to society. They say a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Legalizing pot would waste an awful lot of minds.

I know some will say they smoke pot or have a friend who smokes pot and is doing fine in life. That is the exception, not the rule. There are always exceptions.

Many people claim they support legalizing pot across the board in society. Have they really thought out their positions? Have their opinions been clouded by their own pot smoke induced brains?

Will they support such permissiveness when that means their own adult children can legally smoke pot right in front of them? Can a society who claims to care about future generations be willing to squander that future on such permissiveness as allowing the ambitions of it's children to be sucked away through copious amounts of EZ-Wider rolling paper and bong hits?

Genetics provides enough idiots in society. We don't need to be creating future generations of more unambitious and lazy idiots by legalizing pot.

If you are a socialist or some other type of authoritarian, then the prospect of creating more idiotic drones within society may be an attractive prospect. It may even be attractive to the anarchists.

A democratic republic cannot survive by allowing its population to slide into narcotic induced stupors and whatever permanent damage that may imply on such population.

Whoa! I feel like I just got through a mind storm of 80's anti-drug commercials.

NYMM - you usually have facts to back up your argument, this time it looks as though you toting the Government line and really don't know anyone of which you're basing your information off of first hand.

BTW - Not all drug addicts turn into burnouts, just those that are already as you put it, Genetically disposed to being such.

Come on Conundrum. You don't really believe that garbage you just wrote, do you?

If I sound like a public service commercial it is because it is the truth. Everything you have heard about narcotics usage is basically the truth.

I also never mentioned anything about people being "genetically disposed" to marijuana or any other narcotic substances. I'm not sure how you ascribed that to anything I have said so far on this topic.

Not trying to pick on you NYMM, but you just don't know what you're talking about when you're just repeating everything that has ever been said negatively about people who make their own decisions in life, I.e. being responsible adults and contributing to society.

My Genetic remark was in reference to "Genetics provides enough idiots in society. We don't need to be creating future generations of more unambitious and lazy idiots by legalizing pot."

I've seen people abuse drugs and have some serious issues, but they would have been that way with anything they could get their hands onto. I suppose you are right in the sense that if you're predisposed to that path, it doesn't matter if you break the law to get there.

If you're ever in Phoenix, I'll buy you a beer if it is still legal. :p

Some of the arguments used in saying pot should not be legalized can be easily used on other things. Others are easily rebutted.

Stonecold posted that it poses a problem when not used resposnisbly.

Then I guess we should make the following, which have all been used irresponsibly at least once over the past 20 years, illegal:
Cars, Offroad vehicles, Motorcycles, Dirt bikes, Bicycles, Guns, Alcohol, spraypaint, hammers, wrenches, rope, cameras (video and still), airplanes, fire...I can go on for days...

Cars was a first good choice, because MGJ posted how a 325 year old woman allowed a 15 year old boy (her boyfriend) to drive her car while under the influence of a drug. There is a lot of irresponsibility in that entire scenario. That car was definately being used irresponsibly, thus all cars should be banned, if we follow the logic of the argument.

Someone posted Pot is a drug, it's illegal and should stay that way.
Alcohol is a drug, it was illegal, but it is not now. Should Alcohol be made illegal again?

How about drugs which are currently not legal because they haven't been approved by the FDA? They are a drug, aren't legal now, thus they should never be made legal....
And let's keep in mind some prescription drugs are controlled substances, or made from illegal drugs.

A couple of people posted about the health problems smoking pot may cause, that it is harmful - those health problems are the exact same as those caused by Ciggarettes, which are legal, so unless Cigarettes should also be made illegal, the health issues caused by smoking pot is irrelevant to the argument of it's legalization. And again,. Alcohol has health issues associated with it's use, should that then result in it being made illegal again?

Other harmful things which are still legal include eating fried and fatty foods, eating Fast food, drinking Soda, breathing city air woth all of the pollution from vehicles and industry....so where do we stop banning things because of the health risks or harmfulness of the itme?

Someone posted about Pot smokers going out (making a 7-11 run, I belive was the phrase) and causing an accident. Well, then Alcohol should be made illegal, since most Alochol use isn't at home, but at bars, resturants, sporting arenas...where after it's consumption people drive home.

Someone posted that Alcohol is consumed for other purposes than to alter one's own state of consciousness, and that Pot is only good for altering one's own state of consciousness. Interesting argument, but then there are Non-Alcoholic Beers and Wines out there, so why is it that this person doesn't have a Non-Alcholic beer with his Barbeque or a non-alcoholic wine with his steak at dinner? And if he does, then why would he have a problem with Alcohol being made illegal, since his non-alcoholic beverages don't contain any alcohol, and thus would still be legal? And why don't resturaunts, bars, sporting arenas, etc. serve only non-alcoholic beverages if the purpose of drinking is not altering the state of one's own conciousness?
That's because part of the allure of drinking is the altering of one's own consciousness, and like beer, the amount of pot you have affects how much your consciousness is altered. Even one beer causes a change in the consumer, no matter how slight that change may actually be.

Pot is only really a gateway drug because you have to buy it from the same people who are selling those other more profitable (i.e. heavily addictive) drugs. It's also easy for those same dealers to lace the pot with other drugs to get them addicted, or to get them into using another drug.

Legalizing Marijuana makes sense, for a few reasons.

None of the reasons posted for keeping marijuana illegal make sense, especially when you look at other things that the logic behind the "keep it illegal" argument can be applied to.

Talk about robbing the Cradle "Cars was a first good choice, because MGJ posted how a 325 year old woman allowed a 15 year old boy (her boyfriend) to drive her car while under the influence of a drug. ..."

Some good points there, but it's a black and white type issue, either you're for it or against it.

Problem is that those who are for it generally don't want to be lumped into the Category "Pothead, Burnout, etc." and stay quiet. Those that are against it are making money off of it.

It's a Conundrum and will never be solved.

I know plenty about narcotics usage and its negative effects on people and society.

I worked as a narcotics cop for a number of years. There is nothing benign about any controlled substance, including marijuana.

I don't think you know what you are talking about other than your limited exposure to pot or any other narcotic for that matter.

You actually sound like a user.

So give us a meaningful distinction. You basically just typed an encyclopedia and all you gave us on this point was your conclusion that the comparison is "ridiculous and absurd." Well Madman, how exactly is the comparison "ridiculous and absurd?"

NYMM, you let all the law enforcement rhetoric corrupt your thinking on this.

You don't have the facts to back all your arguments because they don't exist.

I'll agree with you on 99% of political discussions, but I disagree with you on this one.

Government studies on the long term effects are largely inconclusive. Not all potheads are lazy asses. There's a lot more people than you think who are occassional recreational users. Those same people are involved in local politics, are business owners, etc.

We definitely disagree on this topic.

Pot is most definitely a gateway drug. That is a well known fact and has been a well known fact for many years. It is also not a Schedule I drug because some bureaucrat happened to pick that classification out of a hat either.

In recent years there has been a plethora of propaganda regarding marijuana usage put out by organizations who are pushing the medical marijuana fraud and other bullshit marijuana legalization organizations like NORML.

At the risk of sounding like a liberal, I have always thought it odd that many people who are pro-marijuana and basically pro-legalization are white people for the most part who are middle class and above in socioeconomic class.

The very negative effects of the drug culture in this country have not had the same impact on this class of people. There has been an impact, but not the same as others.

I might have asked this before, but I will ask again.....

Those that seem to think that pot is a benign substance... Who here would have absolutely no objections to their sons or daughters smoking pot?

Yeah there are alot of people who are recreational users. I know a few that make well over 100K a year, legally, and smoke. Madman have you ever smoked pot, ever?

When I was a teenager I would occasionally smoke pot. But then again, many tried it when we were teenagers. I know some who have never stopped smoking pot. We all know people like that. I'm sure there are people like that here on XOC.

Maybe some are active in this thread.

Pot is only a gateway drug if you have an addictive nature.

Alcohol is also a gateway drug if you have an addictive nature.

you have the same chances of becoming a Drug addict by smoking pot as you do becoming an alcoholic by Drinking booze...to generalize it is just silly

Bingo! And I'd like to hear from only those who actually have kids. I noticed my opinion has changed on questions like these only after we had our son.
Only 100K? Hell, just look at professional athletes who make millions. Still, that doesn't make it's right. I had a horrible experience with weed and will never support legalizing it. But that's just my own experience.

What was the experiance that was terrible??

Muscle twitches, slowing of heart beat and extreme paranoia.

Still waiting...

Paranoia is a common symptom of pot use.

Many users are introverted and also have cognitive problems.

Marijuana use can also lead to the development of schizophrenia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/30/nvet130.xml

Waiting for what?

Your answer has already been very eloquently stated by another user.

Primarily being.... you don't have to get high by drinking alcohol.

The only reason anyone smokes marijuana is to get high. In fact most regular pot users go out of their way to amplify the effects of marijuana by smoking it in bongs or through things like carburetors.

The only real comparison between the two is that both are gateway drugs, especially if usage is started early in age.

I don't consider an unsubstantiated assertion about the way two drugs are used differently to be a meaningful distinction between the drugs themselves.

I guess I'll keep on waiting.

So what is worse:

Being High or Drunk?

Discuss

I have 3 family members that developed schizophrenia from smoking pot. One of the many reasons that I never did illegal drugs.

My statement was not unsubstantiated. It may not have been acceptable to you for some reason, but it was not unsubstantiated.

The drinking of an alcoholic beverage is not always done with the purpose and intent of getting high. Neither does the imbibing of an alcoholic beverage have to result in a high.

An ounce of alcohol a day can also have beneficial health effects on most people without pre-existing conditions.

OK, I'll bite. I'm a step parent to two teenagers, one who has gone through significant drug problems, rehab, and who has really gotten his life on his own off to a rocky start because of it. It's been an extremely difficult chapter of our lives. I will also tell you we did everything as parents to get help from family therapy to gobs of individualized attention, to individual counseling. It all started when he got a job at the local movie theatre and fell into the social fold of the other losers working there. He was 17 at the time. It cost him everything he had, and he's now 18 and struggling on his own. Tough love. I think now it's starting to hit him how stupid he's been.

This is a kid who as a younger teen adamantly swore off drugs because he knew his real dad ruined his own life with drugs, and he harbored a ton of hate his whole life over that fact. Fortunately, his mom was smart enough to get the kids away from that influence at a very young age (she was a very young mother).

Here's the fact. Whether it's legal or not, people are going to get pot. It's widely and readily available in schools, workplaces and just about any place else you care to look. In big city schools, kids can't get away from it, and nearly half of all high school students experiment with it before they finish high school. That's just how many admit to it in surveys. The actual number is probably even higher. Sitting in group therapy sessions with other teens telling their stories gave a chilling account on how rampant drugs are in the schools here. Kids getting high between classes, on lunch breaks, and dealing on school grounds is absolutely commonplace, and all high school kids have easy access to drugs. When all their friends are trying it, the peer pressure is overwhelming, hence the marked increase in teen drug use in recent years. Arizona's proximity to Mexico only serves to make it worse. Pot is super cheap here, and a kid can easly score a quarter ounce for a week's worth of lunch money.

And it's not just pot either. It's ecstasy, heroin (I couldn't believe how many teen heroin addicts we saw), coke, meth (lots and lots of meth), oxycotin, spray paint....you name it. It's in these kids faces every day.

So...since most of you don't have teens yet, I can tell you this is something you'll have to look forward to. Hopefully your kids don't give into their peers.

Drinking under the age of 21 is illegal to, but the vast majority of high school kids have had drinks. This experimentation is part of growing up, and even NYMM admits he experimented too.

To to answer the question, hell no, I don't want my kids smoking pot, drinking, or doing anything else that's ILLEGAL. I never suggested legalizing pot for kids. It would have to be a 21+ thing like alcohol.

Legalization also solves no social problems aside from decriminalizing dealers and keeping some of that money out of the hands of organized crime.

What it does do is decriminalize something that millions of people do already. Do you really think that illegality is really a deterrent for drug use? If you think that, you're kidding yourselves. The recurring theme I saw with kids getting treatment is the overwhelming feeling they weren't doing anything wrong. They don't even think about the legality issue until they get busted, and even then, it does little to stop the patterns.

Marijuana is already a cash crop. You might as well legitimize it and collect taxes to be put towards the common good instead of letting it continue to support organized crime and foreign drug traffickers. It's here. It's already embedded in our society. It's already easily and readily available at low cost. We lost the war on drugs, and we'll continue to lose it as long as people want to get high.

If pot were completely removed from society, a new drug of choice will be found.

As for the gateway drug comment - you obviously didn't read my first response to that. People don't do other drugs because they smoked pot. People do other drugs because they want to experiment with themselves. Addiction comes from abuse.

As for kids and drugs, I've been there guys....I watched it happen with one of my own, and it was brutally hard. Drugs and alcohol are and always should be illegal for kids who haven't fully developed the maturity to make the right decisions for themselves. That goes with alcohol, curfews, driving the family car...everything. It's an adult decision, and I believe adults should have the freedom to do to their bodies what they please.

If they crash their car because they're under the influence, then let existing laws deal with them accordingly. Alcohol is legal, but driving under the influence of it is not. The same should ring true for anything.

Well said, Andy. I Can't really think of anything else that needs to be said.

Well being high and drunk can put you into the spins real quick. But if your either high or drunk, being drunk is way worse. How many people die a year from alcohol poisoning? Lots. How many people OD on weed? None. Some people might get paranoid while high but at least they aren't getting aggressive and angry. When was the last time a stoned person pissed on your leg, broke your car window, or threw a beer bottle at your head?

Spoken like a true ex-narc officer.

When I read NYMM's post, I didn't think he meant age. Maybe I misread it, but I thought he meant ever, at any age. I don't care if my son is my age or older, I hope he never smokes it (at any age) based on my experiences.

I agree that I wouldn't want my daughter to smoke pot or drink alcohol, at any age. I also never want her to date either. Dating leads to broken hearts, mental instability, veneral diseases, bad social character opinion, possible suicide attemps, domestic violence, children out of wedlock, financial ruin, etc.

Hell given the choice between pot, alcohol, and dating, I'd rather she toke up. Dating should be illegal.

Like I stated before, I know many people in my own family whose lives were ruined by alcohol and "hard" drugs, but I've never met ANYONE whose life was ruined by pot smoking. I say legalize it.

As long as cigarettes and alcohol are legal, there is no argument for pot being illegal.

Here is an interesting article from "The Independent" newspaper in the UK.

They are a fairly liberal paper and used to advocate for the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. They no longer support that position and even seem to be apologizing for their previous stand on the issue....

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2368994.ece

The article states...

Maybe as new research keeps coming out, some governments will be rethinking their permissive policies regarding this drug.

It will never be completely legal in the United States. You can take that to the bank.

Hate to break it to you NYMM, but it was not necessarily illegal until there were laws passed that did so. Up until then it was a non-issue.

Sorry I struck such a cord with you, BTW what I do is my own business unless it hurts someone else. Lumping people or Classing them together just perpetuates the problems we face in America, however I see the need with some illegal issues, like aliens, you don't have a choice, either they all go or they all stay. I'm for the former.

Lively discussion, however I haven't really seen anyone prove either way that it should be legal or illegal and maybe that's why it's still an issue. Sometimes it's hard to admit the boat is sinking until you're up to your neck in water, hopefully it won't be too late and we can bring rational heads to the table to make sensible laws that are really best for the country and not for special interests.

It would interest me to see a list of pro's vs. con's to see what would bear out.

Also Andy, I didn't know about all that and I wish the best for you man. Thank you for sharing your experience.

Pot kills....

...entire pizzas.

Al Bundy, is that you?

ROFLMAO! You are kidding, right?

Originally posted by Desert_Rat

Pot kills....

...entire pizzas.

Thanks for bringing this topic to a lighter side...and reminding me to order a couple ham and pineapple stuffed crusts.

Of course I will have them delivered.

well NY MADD MAN i am from back east if you are who you say you are why are you waisting our time! i have seen what you speak of and i would think there is not enough time in a day to fix all of the problems . So drink more decaf and eat less donuts!

i have seen what drugs can do!this is why i dont live this close to NY ..and it seems to come from other countrys right off the docks i bet it has not gotten any better now and there is alot of new fads back east that have come and gone it rolled into New jersey and so on . dont miss it at all back east!

I'm a true Libertarian, baby....

I want a joint in one hand and a gun in the other

The funny thing is, on a Porsche forum I frequent, there is another heated debate about legalize bud going on right now.

What makes me scratch my a$$ about the whole thing is. Beer and alcohol are a man made product which kills millions in many diffrent ways. But cannibus is 100% natural, grown from mother earth herself and it's illegal and it doesn't come close to the damage alcohol does. Just seens kinda weird to me. Tabacco comes from mother earth and it kills millions but they can sell it. What I think is the Government is scared they wouldn't be able to have 100% control of the product for taxing purposes like they do with tabacco and alcohol. To easy to grow, even a stoner can do it. Rant / Rave

Yeah - it's hard to have a strong economic side to the argument when anybody can grow their own...

[sarcasm]
Their supposed to be lazy, lowlife, good-for-nothing, burned-out, unmotivated peices of crap that should all be put in jail for a minimum of 10years per J.

How could they Grow their own with that kind of fact?
[/sarcasm]

Biggest U.S. Cash Crop is Marijuana
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017&page=1

$35 billion the economic impact could be enormous, just look how many billions the cig taxes take in. But of course if it where legal it would be worth less.

Instead of getting a piece of that action, the govt want to waste billions on some loosing war against a weed that is less harmful than some of things you can purchase at you're local quickie mart.

The federal govt just does get it.. despite state laws in many places on lawfull use, medical purposes they take a stand against the people who voted this stuff in…govt for the people?

I'm aware of the history of drug laws in this country. Just because a law regarding something does not exist, doesn't make its use right.

Marijuana laws do not exist solely in the United States either. Almost every country on earth has laws regarding marijuana. It's a controlled substance in almost every country.

Some countries are extremely strict, some are a bit lax regarding personal use. There are even a few countries with such draconian drug laws where if you are caught selling pot, or are convicted of the intent to distribute, they will give you the death penalty.

I think it is fairly safe to say that the majority of the world feels that marijuana belongs as a controlled substance and should remain illegal. My opinion on the matter is hardly a minority opinion.

Quote:

Sorry I struck such a cord with you, BTW what I do is my own business unless it hurts someone else.

You didn't strike a chord in me. I just merely stated that I think it is correct that marijuana be illegal.

It seems the "pro-illegal" viewpoint is what has struck a chord in some in this thread. It's not like that wasn't expected.

The laws of the land are in agreement with my opinion. Those laws won't be seriously changing either in any of our lifetimes, so I really don't have an emotional or political stake in this topic.

Whether you believe it or not, your drug use does harm other people. I doubt you grow your own marijuana for your personal consumption, so your drug purchases are most likely subsidizing a wide swath of related peripheral criminal activities including murder. Maybe even the murder of law enforcement personnel both in and out of this country. Possibly terrorism too.

Quote:

Lumping people or Classing them together just perpetuates the problems we face in America

What "lumping" are you referring to? Do you mean calling pot users "stoners" and "potheads"? Well, people who use regularly are potheads and stoners.

I wouldn't call an occasional or rare user a stoner or pothead, but those labels are appropriate for the regular and daily users. These people are addicted.

Quote:

Lively discussion, however I haven't really seen anyone prove either way that it should be legal or illegal and maybe that's why it's still an issue.

For the people who feel that pot should be legal, it will always be an issue.

I can tell you one thing though. It will NEVER be completely legal. The federal government will never make it legal. Congress will NEVER intervene to make it legal (That includes both Democrats and Republicans).

Most countries on earth will never make it completely legal.

That's the reality.

ROFLMAO! You are kidding, right?

Nope, not kidding. I guess I'm not seeing the humor.

uhhhh... maybe.... but that's the government's fault. If it weren't illegal we'd be paying premiums for "certified 100% organic" weed from small American farms... crap like that.

All of the LEO deaths, the tremendous cost etc etc fall squarely on the people who drafted and enacted these retarded laws - not on the guy who just wants to buy a little of something he's too scared to grow himself.

X2, I'd grow for myself or friends/family if it were legal, but we do agree whereas it will never be legal. There's too much money at stake for the Government. It's not cheap running all this propaganda machine and the Law enforcement to keep busting street level users and not the Cartels that bring it here. Most Men cannot admit when they have been wrong, doesn't come easily anyways, so since most Government is run by Men, they're not going to admit wrong and like I said before will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.

I still owe ya a beer if you're in Phoenix NYMM. We agree most of the time so I know we'd have a great discussion and I would look forward to the opportunity.

The fact is the legal status of pot has little to do with it getting you high and everything to do with economic special interests. Petrochemical companies are the wealthiest in the world with very very deep pockets for PACs.
Hemp may not be exactly the same as the grass you smoke, but it IS the reason it is illegal. Methanol is a viable alternative to gasoline but only if a fast growing biomass is available. Interesting that hemp based methanol fueled many cars in the early 1900s. Also interesting that Nylon (petrochemical based) was patented shortly before hemp was outlawed. This legislation was a bit premature though because not enough hemp fiber alternatives were available to make the rope for our war ships so special permits were granted to grow hemp for the war efforts.

I do not smoke pot EVER, I do not drink alcohol EVER!
If one of my children was going to do one or the other, aside from the legal consequences (which are too many and too great) I would much rather they smoked pot than drank alcohol.

As to anyone who says they don't drink alcohol for the buzz I call BULLSHIT! When you don't drink at all it becomes very obvious the change in someone's personality after only one drink. Wether or not you call this buzzed, or drunk, or nothing at all it is still an altered state of being. That being said, if you want to drink, ENJOY just fess up to the fact that you enjoy altering your state of mind.

What about a brewmaster? He may enjoy the buzz but he's not drinking to get a buzz.

NYMM, this is another example of where my posts weren't read. You're typically very good at backing your arguments with facts and documentation, but that's been gloriously absent from this argument, probably because you're an ex cop and can't accept the fact that something you enforced for X number of years might not have been worth enforcing. You bought into the anti drug propoganda machine hook, line, and sinker. You, of all people should be able to see through that, and look at facts (not US government studies with skewed results either) to back your arguments.

Just like alcohol, if you don't want to do it, you don't have to. Health effects of long term drinkers are considerably more severe than your pot heads and stoners. You're naiive to think that even those who are daily smokers are unproductive members of society. I know a lot of people between leading the SWANKy club, running my own website similar to XOC (nissan4wheelers.com), and working for a huge corporation. You'd be surprised who smokes pot. I'm not saying this to justify right vs. wrong; I'm simply refuting your factless arguments. I respect your opinions normally, so show me something convincing the other way.

Legalization takes the criminal element out of the picture. I don't think anyone disagrees that organized crime benefits from it being illegal. The US Government and its people certainly do not. The economic impact alone should be argument enough to leglalize it, but unfortunately, our politicians and a good chunk of the populous bought into the government propoganda that's been spread for over 60 years that it's an evil drug.

As for the guy who has 3 relatives that developed schizophrenia from smoking weed, I call bullshit. They probably weren't stable to begin with. Give me the medical proof.

Didn't I post one or two links to newspaper articles about studies regarding pot's links to schizophrenia and other mental illnesses?

It would seem your posts are not the only ones not being read.

You are doing exactly the same thing you are accusing me of doing.

The pro-legalization arguments are just as lame as the pro-illegal arguments are accused of being. Most of the pro-legalization arguments and not based on proven fact. Much of it is mostly suppositions and emotions.

I'm not saying that neither side is absent of any of it's own propaganda, but there are flaws to both sides of the argument.

I most certainly did read your schizophrenia link.

Very clearly in the 3rd paragraph, it states that the use of the drug was NOT believed to be the primary cause, they just saw an increase in the occurrence of it among those with a poor disposition.

That one is really weak.

I'm for legalization so I have no reason to lie to try to make a point.

I have 3 uncles that are schizo, 2 of them are in what I would call halfway houses. My other uncles are normal and didn't get into pot. I also have a very close friend that is pretty much a waste because of his addiction to pot. Seeing this growing up kept me away from drugs thankfully.

Yes, but do you honestly think that smoking pot was the cause of this, or did they have borderline personalities to begin with?

You might not be able to answer, but I would be surprised if there was conclusive evidence that just smoking pot was the sole cause of their conditions.

Then again, I have had several relatives die early deaths (in their 40s and 50s) because of alcoholism - a legal substance.

My point in this whole argument is not that pot is completely harmless. There's risks associated with everything. What I'm saying is prohibition is entirely ineffective and just creates a criminal element that would be greatly diminished if the substance were legalized.

Prohibition on alcohol didn't work. It just fueled a huge underground organized crime syndicate that took the continued distribution of spirits upon itself with no regulation.

From what I've read, when pot was outlawed, the intention was NOT to outlaw Hemp. But the government agency in charge of drug enforcement at the time decided to lump hemp in with pot.

I agree that is should be legalized and for pretty much the same reasons as you, but we probably disagree about it's dangers. I don't mean this in a bad way but of all the people around me that I know use drugs, 95% of them are pretty much losers imo.

You can do your own searching for articles and studies related to marijuana use, schizophrenia and mental illness in general. There is an awful lot out there. Of course there are the pro-marijuana people and articles that refute whatever evidence comes out.

In one article I posted regarding the UK, they cited the results of a recent study that could have them discussing revisiting their classification of marijuana. A couple of years ago, pot was reclassified in the UK. It was the law enforcement industry that pushed for that reclassification.

I'll reprint the post....

There is new research coming out all the time on this subject. In the past there was really never much research done on the effects of long term marijuana usage.

Let's not get into these ridiculous arguments where we claim to know successful people who smoke pot regularly. There are exceptions to every rule. I also know such people. I'm sure we all do. We all also know people whose lives have been hurt by their pot usage.

The pro-legalization arguments rely on too many assumptions. One assumption being that legalization would have no negative effect on society as a whole and that the amount of people who smoke pot will not increase because of the fact that the government has put their seal of approval on the drug.

Another common assumption is that the legalization of pot will completely eliminate all the underground trafficking and criminal element involved in the pot trade.

Probably the biggest assumption made by the pro-legalization side of the argument is that most governments on earth are wrong regarding the issue.

No, I'm not so naiive to think that there would be no more pot users than there are today. Experimentation and recreational use would go way up.

On the illegal trafficking, it would likely follow the same course as alcohol in post-prohibition years. There's still money to be made on untaxed liquor, however, illegal liquor, while still present, is run by small timers because there just isn't the opportunity for big money in it like there was in a prohibition environment. The same would hold true for a few home growers that will sell their product for a few bucks under what you can buy a pack of Marlboro Light Joints at the local 7-11.

The key to use is moderation. The examples of people I'd mentioned are no different than citing examples of people who drink, but are not alcoholics.

I guess there's no use in trying to get you to see the parallels.

As for governments of the world being wrong....well, that's a whole other subject that would quickly turn into a 50 page thread.

Canadian, American cops say it\'s time to end drug prohibition, save lives

I think you would have been better off just claiming that some pro-drug propaganda documentary wishes to make the false claim that cops wish to end drug prohibition. It's a bullshit article about a complete bullshit so-called documentary.

That article is nothing but propaganda pushing like minded propaganda.

Since when does an organization "supposedly" consisting of 7000 law enforcement professionals speak for the entire law enforcement community? It only happens in a propaganda piece.

Do you have any idea how many people are employed in law enforcement capacities in the US alone? 7000 people would represent a tiny percentage. Hardly even a justification to make any claim regarding what police or the law enforcement community may or may not support.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I just posted the article that goes well with this thread.

You don't have to worry about this, no government will risk loosing the next election by legalizing drugs. Politicians may talk about it, but all they do is talk. So all we will see is long debates and status quo.

The only time you will see this change is if there is a political or financial gain for the politicians. Arguments from both sides, good or bad, are irrelevant for politicians, it's what they have to gain that matters to them.

and nicotine is NOT a drug? If I remember my statistics correctly, smoking (cigarettes that is) is the 4th leading cause of preventable death in North America.

I say legalize it. The only thing is, what will Bush do with all the extra taxes? scary.

The people too have spoken. In two consecutive general elections, Arizona voters voted to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. Both times, the legislature went against the will of the people and overturned the propositions.

Put into the right context, I believe the majority of Americans would be in favor of limited legalization.

That's fact. In Arizona, it was approved by a landslide both times.

Unfortunatley, the brewmaster is tasting, not drinking.

In addition, the brewmaster is drinking because it's his job, and you can not compare a job to a casual situation.

That's like saying Police officers are allowed to have guns and bodyarmor and can walk into a bank with them, so everyone should be allowed to have guns and bodyarmor and walk into banks with them. :rolleyes:

PAUL, YOU ALRIGHT BUDDY?

The main reason it is still illegal IMO is the fact that people can grow it in their backyard and forgo paying taxes on it. It is also difficult to test from a DUI perspective. It's all about that dollar. Can I get an Amen?

The full 911 call.

And while we're on the topic... This kid has the funniest mugshot ever. click me

I think I've had that same grin.

How many of you who favor legalization of pot are in favor of repealing the gun control act of 1968? Other than Kaiser. You can have your pot as long as I can buy a machine gun made last year without having to be a dealer. That way when you get high and do something stupid like threaten me - and most pot heads can be drawn into making threats against someone's life - I have a fighting chance. In reality, folks, it can't be tested for on the streets. How would you like to have to go to the hospital to have blood drawn every time you get pulled over? Probable cause to administer a breathalyzer is the appearance of being intoxicated. For pot, that means a needle in the arm. If you're a known offender, it's even more likely you'll get stuck for every traffic stop. If they legalize it, I want to see heavy taxation and heavy punishment for tax evasion. Most dealers currently could be charged with tax evasion, unless they are reporting the income from the pot sales.

""like threaten me - and most pot heads can be drawn into making threats against someone's life ""

Um yeah. I think we may need protection from YOU.

I usually agree with you man, but I know A LOT of people that smoke and i've NEVER seen anyone be agressive at all while high. Now alcohol and "harder" drugs on the other hand are a different story. I'd rather make alcohol illegal and legalize pot purely from the health and social risks involved with each.

Do I think it should be legal? I don't know where I stand on that. I do know that I used to smoke it by the bale when I was in college. Compared to drinking, I think weed is far less dangerous etc. I've never heard of anyone being accused of being a "mean high". I don't think people call off work or skip classes because they got stoned the night before, as opposed to being drunk. I never had a high hangover. At most I've woken up with a cough, cottonmouth and a belly ache from eating a bag of Funyons, a box of Little Debbies, a pint of Ben & Jerrys, large cheese pizza and half a box of Lucky Charms. Like they say...
"Marijuanna leads to other things....like junk food"

People get drunk and drive. I don't know, for me, when I was high, I wasn't going anywhere...far too lazy. Going somewhere takes effort. Not saying that people don't get high and drive, I would just bet that very few less do than drink and drive.

My main argument, is that booze is legal. It's something that is manufactured, sold and drank. People get wasted on it. Weed is just a plant that you smoke, and basically the gubment says "You can not smoke this plant". I've heard theres a new plant/flower whatever that people are smoking now and gets you much worse than weed..I think it even makes you hallucinate (sp)... is that going to be illegal now? Maybe a silly example, but if I went into my backyard, pulled some leaves off my lilac tree, dried them, smoked them and got a cool high, then told all my buddies and it caught on, are lilacs going to be illigal?

BTW...I fully blame any grammitikul errors in this post on my stoner years.

So, apparently you need a fully-automatic weapon to have a "fighting chance" against a pot head. Try a bag of Funyuns instead - they are just as deadly to a pot head.

FYI, I've seen plenty of drunk people become irate/aggressive, yet I've never seen a stoner start a fight.

Hey, I know what side of the fence you're on as a "never used it before" hardcore military guy, and I respect that. I did my time in the service too, however, you're way off on this one. The only agression out of a pothead you'll see is towards an unsuspecting pizza or a bag of Doritos.

I'm pro gun too. I vote republican, though my leanings are far more liberatarian. I'm conservative in most of my beliefs, however, the war on drugs was lost before it started. Our government wastes more money prosecuting and incarcerating relatively harmless drug users than you can imagine. Think if that money were directed towards the fight on terrorism instead.

Legalize it all. Tax the shit out of it. Make it affordable enough and available enough to put the drug dealers on the street out of business. By doing so you eliminate the criminal element from this.

Users are users whether it's legal or not. Remember that, it's important. As a society, we can continue letting this issue chip away at our tax dollars fighting it, or we can turn it into something profitable through the tax revenue it could generate.

If you think potheads are aggressive, you truly have bought into all the bullshit propaganda that's been fed to you by the war on drugs campaign.

Do some research and find out what most of your violent criminals were under the influence of. My bet is that you'll find alcohol is the #1.

FYI, I've seen plenty of drunk people become irate/aggressive, yet I've never seen a stoner start a fight.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Ever try to fight in a pair of Birkenstocks? Besides, we don't want to get blood on our Phish show tye-dyes.

Worst I ever had was the thought, "Man, I would kill for a grilled cheese sammie right now".

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have yet to hear someone defend legalizing it without referencing alcohol in some way or another with their argument. Until someone does, it ain't going to happen. It reminds me of the Vick supporters using hunting to support dog fighting.

So booze should be illegal then? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I think it should be legalized because I don't think it's anybody's business but mine if I want to smoke pot. It doesn't hurt anybody else. I guess I just don't like it when the government tries to manage my life for me. Plus, as a practical matter the government is giving up one hell of a lot of tax revenue. I sure wouldn't mind seeing my income taxes or social security taxes go down because the government had a new source of revenue...

Alcohol and weed comparison is legit. If by your Vick example, you mean that both are the recreational killing of an animal, then that's way off base. One is the death of an animal for pure entertainment. The other is a "harvesting", that yes, provides a form of "entertainment", but yet still is a harvest.

If I have the example wrong, then bad on me, sorry.

How can you not compare it to things like alcohol that are legal? What about cigarettes or the thousands of other prescription drugs that you can take that can be harmful to you physically and mentally? Why does the government get to decide what I can ingest? No, I truly believe pot is illegal because it's completely uncontrollable. It grows anywhere. You can't control something like that, nor can you make any money off of it. You need a license to grow tobacco, and tobacco needs a certain type of soil/climate for it to prosper. You can brew beer in small quantities without federal/state licenses, but distilling "hard" alcohol is completely illegal, and it's also alot more difficult to brew beer and distill potable alcohol than it is to grow a weed.

If the state/federal government could control it, it would be legal. I do not think it has anything to do with any "health concern", not when I can spend $5.00 and OD on tylenol.

The point is, people try to make a case by using the two wrongs make a right argument. Who the hell cares if alcohol or tobacco is legal or not? It has nothing to do with marijuana and is a whole different discussion. Give us reasons as to why marijuana is healthy enough for everyone and should therefore be legal? No one can, so they resort to the "it's safer than such and such, so why not?". The only thing I hear is about all the money from taxes. Again, who cares? Money should not be a factor on something that affects the health and safety of everyone. If it's something that's going to be made legal for my son as he gets older, I'd like to hear why it would be safe for him. When you make something legal, you make it legal for everyone... not just what you do in your own time. For those that remember or have re-read this thread, I've already mentioned my bad experiences with it so I'm all for keeping it illegal until someone can show me otherwise without comparing it to something else.

Dude, I have two grandfathers in the grave because of alcohol and about 4 alcoholics in my family. Why is it legal?

To answer your question though, it will or won't be safe for him, depending upon him. If we are going to make something illegal because of what it may or may not do to one person over another, then most everything sold should be illegal. I know not one single person that has ever had a bad experience with pot. EVERY person I know who drinks has had at least several bad experiences with it.

Thanks for making my point. You can't do it just like no one else can. Therefore, it will always remain illegal.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean your son would be forced to smoke it, just like he's not forced to drink, use chewing tobacco, etc. Your job as his father is to educate him as you see fit to avoid things that you believe would be bad for him. That's not a role for the government, imo.

Amsterdam and I had a good laugh at that. I think it'll be legal within 10-20 years because quite frankly there's no logical argument against such a move.

It's futile to even debate you on the subject if you won't debate the comparison. It's the comparison that gives you a basis for the debate to begin with.

It's akin to wanting to outlaw amusement parks. They are dangerous, and serve no purpose other than entertainment. Could I not compare the dangers of amusement parks to say, water parks, if one was illegal and the other was not, especially when they both are things you choose to do?

All in all it should be your own personal choice with what you do to your body, or EVERYTHING that can change our state of mind should be illegal, not just those things the government decides should be illegal.

I'm just saying, that's not going to hold up to Congress. That's not good enough. It's going to take alot more than that to get it legal. You will have a hard time with your case by presenting one more bad thing parents have to worry about.

Wishful think, but again... that's not the problem. The problem is there's not good logical argument for such a move.

Yeah, parents don't have to worry about pot now because it's so difficult for their kids to get it.

Ask a high school kid someday if it's more difficult to obtain pot or beer. I think you may be surprised by the answer.

The bottom line is this - from a public policy standpoint there's no reason to treat pot any differently than alcohol. Both can be intoxicating, both have health drawbacks, and both are widely used. Make a list of pluses and minuses of both substances and you'll have more reasons to outlaw alcohol than pot. The fact that you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge this makes this debate pointless.

Sorry, I thought you were making a statement and didn't think you needed a response. As far as that's concerned, go try to get alcohol banned then. You obviously have a legit argument. It has nothing to do with this subject, but I wish you the best of luck and you'll obviously have a lot of people on your side. There's a lot a movement to try and get tobacco banned, so you could follow what they've done so far (just a suggestion).

As far as I can tell, there are no reported deaths related solely to marijuana. You can't overdose on it etc. All drug related death statistics that I find, point to external causes and multiple drugs/alcohol in the person's system. I cannot find a single report about someone actually being killed by marijuana alone. I can't say that for any other "drug". That alone tells me that marijuana is at the very least the safest drug to put into your body.

It's not addictive, It's not proven to cause lung cancer, yet may actually help it, and it doesn't cause "second hand" smoke. No chemicals or other controlled substances are used in its creation. I honestly don't understand why its illegal when so many other things aren't. It can't be controlled and the state/feds won't have a reliable way of making money off of it, that's why its illegal.

Why? Both are illegal to them, so what's your point? You actually make the point that it's hard from them to get either, so being illegal actually helps. And don't take this up with me, I'm just pointing out what you all will have to do to get it legalized. So far, it sounds like everyones arguement will only end up making alcohol illegal.

Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you. I actually met someone who had a heart attack smoking weed (and only weed), but didn't die. I came across her when I was decribing what happened to me when I smoked it. Also, my former roomate was addicted to it and even admitted it to us. And don't forget the classic "mom's basement" guy or "mailroom" guy, etc. Obviously, they're addicted. But maybe those are small rare instances. I'll trust your research because this subject doesn't mean as much to me as it does the stoners. Maybe they'll have better luck with the governement or maybe it will uncover stuff your research doesn't show. Who knows? Only one way to find out, right?

Have a good weekend!

I've got the perfect argument for those against legalization of drugs.

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU AGAIN?

I don't care who the fuck you are, you don't have the right to tell me what I can and cannot ingest. Drug laws stand in contradiction with the Constitution, which explicitly states that I have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. If I choose to ingest mind-altering substances as a way of pursuing happiness, and that pursuit is done without hindering the rights of others to their own lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness, who has the Constitutionally mandated right to regulate my behavior?

Dear government, I'm not a child, and I'm not your tax chattel. I regulate my behavior. I decide what I ingest and do not ingest. Not the cops, not the Feds, not Nancy Reagan with her prescription happy pills and wagging fingers. Stay out of my home, stay out of my personal life, respect the boundaries of my property, and know your fucking place. You see me directly hurting someone else? Come stop me. Until then, shut the fuck up and go away.

I'm pretty sure what you've been injesting at all those rest stops isn't at all what this thread is about. :rolleyes:

So, you say that comparing alcohol to marijuana is an ineffective ploy, but then you compare the pro-legalization argument with a pro-dogfighting argument. Is marijuana like dogfighting?

Does anyone else smell the irony?

It's liberals like you that ruin this country. Yes, I said liberal. Look it up. You're it.

I agree 100%.

But what does this say:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'm only throwing this in for argument is all. I don't agree or disagree with legalizing the stuff. I see both sides of the issue. But what does the Preamble of the constiution say right there "promtethegeneral welfare" They have to watch over us

I would bet money that most addictions are mental, not physical. The truly addicted turn tricks and live on the street to support a habit. Just because some folks live in the basement or never aspire for a meaningful career, doesn't mean weed put them there. You'd be hard pressed to find people commiting crimes just for a weed fix (excluding the victimless crime of purchasing and smoking of course)

And I highly doubt the person who had a heart attack was a model example of a balanced and healthy diet and exercise. Let's be realistic. People are addicted to Nintendo, internet forums and porn too, and McDonalds, Budweiser and Jack Daniels are a bigger menace to health/DUI/whatever

You son of a bitch, how dare you sully the good names of MacDonald's, Budweiser and Jack Daniels?

If you even read the article:
Second, the research is misleading, because it states
These are people who have done pot heavily at age 15 while their brains are still developing.

Pot is and always has been incredibly safe for regular recreational use. As with everything, you over use it and well, you'll have issues.

The right wing crazy people like you are what keep pot illegal. What benefit does this have? People with dime bags go to jail? People with cancer suffer more?

I used to work in the jail system. I've seen people get aggressive, but that's not the point of my arguement. If we're talking about freedom, let's talk about freedom. Pot heads want their dope, I want my toys.

Well, I'm not sure about that last comment about there being no public outcry that it be reclassified. Several states have passed medical use propositions on the ballots. Arizona has done it twice, and both times the legislature went against the will of the voters and refused to allow it.

Why on earth would you take an effective form of relief from a cancer patient suffering pain and discomfort just to perpetuate a war on drugs that was lost before it started?

This is no public outcry at all for the feds to change anything marijuana related on their books.

The "medical marijuana" thing is happening at the state level. It is also basically nothing but a fraud. It is an attempt to make an end run around marijuana laws, but state laws cannot trump federal law.

I don't know the statistics, but I recall reading once that most states that put marijuana to the ballot, it is usually voted down. Colorado voted it down recently.

People don't want the government giving the green light to pot. They don't want the government telling their kids it is OK to smoke pot.

The feds have already cracked down on some of this medical marijuana fraud that has been occurring. The Supreme Court also made a ruling on the subject in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich.

California is finding out the hard way about the medical marijuana fraud. They become nothing but storefront dealing operations. Many have been shut down by law enforcement.

Regarding people who are sick, they can already get pot as a drug through prescriptions. The drug is called Marinol.

Most of the legitimate healthcare industry says medical marijuana is a fraud. Medical marijuana is political movement for potheads. It's not a legitimate scientific or health industry issue.

I'm glad you think it's OK that we put millions and millions of taxpayer dollars into punishing potheads.

Myself, I think there's a lot more worthwhile things we could be spending that money on.

Alcohol is way worse!! I don't smoke by the way.

I don't drink, and I don't smoke.

What do I do?

Apparently, listen to too much Adam Ant . . .

I never said I thought all potheads should be in jail. I think the dealers should be in jail and do some time. Users for the most part should be hit with fines, and most states treat it as such. People caught with small amounts may typically be hit with a misdemeanor and a desk appearance ticket.

I also think the "three strike" laws in some states should be revisited and written better to avoid putting certain people away because of the way these laws are written.

It's also useless crying about the money spent on enforcing pot laws. It can also be a money maker because of the fines some of the petty offenses generate.

The government blows far much more money on useless earmarks and pork then they do on combating petty marijuana users. Have you looked at the billions being wasted in the most recent appropriations bill?

Enforcing drug laws should be the very least of your concerns if you are concerned about government spending.

I'd like to know where this "most of the legitimate" is.

It's not the AMA. They say further studies are needed - they are NOT saying it's not beneficial. But the government won't even allow the studies.

What do you mean the government won't allow studies?

The federal government has a licensed facility of it's own that grows marijuana for the specific purpose of scientific research. It's called the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

And they do studies on the medicinal value of pot? I think not.

Again, where is this "most of" you speak of.

I would say NIDA provides the pot for research. You would most likely have to contact HHS and get a permit and then the marijauna from NIDA. You would also have to be a legitimate research organization or university that does medical and scientific research. Not "Bill and Ted" looking for an 'excellent adventure'.

I think the University of Mississippi grows the pot for NIDA. Other universities want to start growing their own.

There is no major legitimate medical organization that advocates medical marijuana. How could they? They expend a lot of effort trying to get people from smoking cigarettes. They would look like fools telling sick people it would be alright to smoke something else. Especially a substance that is smoked without a filter, and which is inhaled much more deeply then cigarettes. A substance which also raises blood pressure and causes the heart to race faster.

Some research also shows that pot is damaging to the lungs.

Why would any legitimate medical professional tell sick people to smoke something when they can get the active chemicals in a pill form?

I'd like to see that research by someone other than a gov't agency since you know as well as I do the government will water down and manipulate any agency reports as not to contradict any of its 'war on drugs' propaganda.

Unfortunately, the governement would consider you a criminal if you tried to conduct your own research.

Say nothing about the huge manufacturing and energy market from Hemp that the Government is turning away from simply because it's basically the same plant. Stupid.

No, scratch that.

Incredibly stupid.

I don't disagree with that - a legitimate third party that has no bias on the subject is where it would have to be done.

There is no major legitimate medical organization that advocates AGAINST it, either.

Because the pill is not as effective in delivery. Any substance is delivered more efficiently (and quickly) when it's smoked as opposed to swallowed.

By the way - John P. Walters, Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, wrote back in 2004: smoked marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance...has no medical value...

Now, if he said that...and Marinol has THC, which is the substance that is Marinol is used for...isn't his comment a flat out lie? Regardless of the dangers (or lack of dangers) of pot, isn't that a flat out lie?

goody two shoes.. :rolleyes:

Many cancer patients and otherwise ingest marijuana by eating it in food or shakes.

Works quite well and there is no smoke, unless you forget to turn off the blender.

Anyone who wants to use marijuana can and does. I have known professional people who use all the time and have for over thirty years.

When I think of all the tax dollars missed I shudder.

Yes.... The AMA does recommend further scientific research into the medical uses of marijuana. The DEA also approves of scientific studies into the medical uses of marijuana.

However, the AMA clearly states that they do not approve of the delivery device being smoking. There are too many adverse affects of smoking. Especially in sick people.

The AMA wants a delivery device such as an inhaler if marijuana cannabinoids are proven to have further medical benefits than is currently known.

The AMA will never approve of smoking any plant mixtures. They don't think it should be done longer than six months in any studies or clinical trials either.

You can review the AMA's opinions and recommendations here.....

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13625.html

The DEA's web site regarding this subject is here....

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html

Even if inhalers are produced that deliver the cannibiniods into the body, the medical marijuana people will never be happy. The entire issue is nothing but a complete fraud and designed to circumvent the law.

Quote:

By the way - John P. Walters, Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, wrote back in 2004: smoked marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance...has no medical value...

Now, if he said that...and Marinol has THC, which is the substance that is Marinol is used for...isn't his comment a flat out lie? Regardless of the dangers (or lack of dangers) of pot, isn't that a flat out lie?

Marinol is a synthetic substance that has been available since the 80's. Smoked marijuana has many chemical components. Some of which are not good for the body. Some are also little known by science.

Marinol has the same or similar effects as pot but without all the impurities that come with pot and the act of smoking it.

The main argument of the medical marijuana fraudsters against Marinol is that it does not act immediately such as the act of smoking.

I wouldn't say the guy was lying. The Clinton Administration's "drug Czar" also stated back then that the medical marijuana issue was basically a fraud that he described as a "stalking horse" for pot legalization.

The Marinol web site is here....

http://www.marinol.com/aboutmarinol/index.html

The government does approve of research regarding marijuana. It just depends how it is done and conducted.

You do realize their are liability issues regarding testing smoking of anything. Who will pay for all the lawsuits that the lawyers will bring when the control groups say their health was destroyed because of the clinical trials? Do you want the taxpayers to pay for that? Should the researchers have to pay for that?

That is why a lot of research has to be done on animals.

The government also used to be in the medical marijuana business. Up until some time in the 90's the government used to provide pot for people with such claims. There was a federal agency that used to provide the pot for people. Then it got ridiculous and tens of thousands of people applied for claims and the government canceled the program. There is still a tiny handful of people who receive government pot.

Quote:

Say nothing about the huge manufacturing and energy market from Hemp that the Government is turning away from simply because it's basically the same plant. Stupid.

I agree that hemp does have many viable industrial uses. Most especially as a concrete and stucco additive for construction.

As far as energy goes, we have already discussed in another thread there is not enough land in the US for any plant to be a viable replacement for petroleum.

Which at this point in time, is NOT happening.

The University of Mississippi's growing of pot is for the SEVEN people who managed to get into the "compassionate" program. That program was ended by Bush I. Nobody else is allowed in, and as far as I can tell - it's not being used for research at all. Once those seven are dead...it's done and ended.

What makes you say any of these things? What is your source of info?

Are you relying on the plethora of pro-marijuana propaganda that is out there? You may be.

NIDA does supply pot for any scientific research that applies through the proper channels. They supply all kinds of drugs and controlled substances.

Check the NIDA web site page for researchers....

http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchers.html

I don't know how current and up to date their info is, ( I suspect they are a little behind as are many government agencies), but if you search in the proper sections for marijuana related studies, there are many they have approved... and I'm sure have supplied the marijuana.

Wow....Madman's had so much cop propaganda shoved up his ass, it's beginning to come out of his mouth!

What does all this matter? The question that should be asked is Who has a right to tell a free man what he can and cannot put in his own body?

Why won't anyone answer that fucking question?

Oh, and Madman, where did you get your medical degree?

'Cause it seems awful strange that you should know how to best treat cancer patients.

True that.

I don't see even one that they have given pot to. A survey does not count as research using pot.

There have been STATES that have approved it. But the DEA has NOT approved it.

The funny thing is...cocaine CAN be used in medicine.

Gee...which is more dangerous? (And cocaine - there are PLENTY of substitutes for it in medicine, seeing as how it's simply used as a topical anesthetic.

What do want to put in your body?

Should the government allow cocaine, heroin, LSD and every other type of illicit drug to be freely available?

Where do we draw the line on what is acceptable? Where does the interest of society as a whole come into play according to you?

Should the government allow any manufacturer to put anything they want into any product that hits the market for human consumption? Should we allow you to paint your house with lead paint because you or someone else may think it is OK?

The list can go on and on. Where do you want to draw the line? Does getting high trump everything else? Is the line for you drawn at getting high? Society as a whole be damned.

I don't need a medical degree. You don't need one either to know that the majority of the medical profession doesn't approve of smoking pot to ease the effects of cancer treatments.

That is a bogus argument and I think you know that.

The AMA clearly states on it's web site that marijuana should remain a Schedule I drug until further scientific data is known.

Are you sure you are looking?

The link to clinicaltrials.gov shows the following as of 2006....

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/search?term=Marijuana&submit=Search

Quote:

There have been STATES that have approved it. But the DEA has NOT approved it.

I think the states and the research organizations still need permits and approval from HHS.

Quote:

The funny thing is...cocaine CAN be used in medicine.

The Coca plant is used for various purposes. As far as I know, it is not the same cocaine that is manufactured for the streets with kerosene.

No you idiot. This is about marijuana. :rolleyes:

You're the idiot.

The question posed was... "Who has a right to tell a free man what he can and cannot put in his own body?

I didn't see any delineation at marijuana with that question.

I highly doubt one was implied either.

oK, But why is weed illegal, but tobacco and alcohol are not?

Beer, wine, tobacco, and distilled spirits are exempt from the Controlled Substances Act.

I'm sure there are many reasons for that being the case. I'm also sure many of those reasons are disputed by the pro-drug lobby. There is plenty out there on both sides of the argument.

Even though alcohol has a potential for abuse, it also is societally accepted and can be used without the purpose of specifically obtaining a high.

The reason is not specifically clear and is open to much interpretation.

Caffeine is considered a psychoactive drug and is also not on the list.

DEA Drug Scheduling is here.....

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

EDIT: Alcohol is still prohibited in some places around the country because of local laws.

I'm sure many people have been on a road trip and wound up in a "dry county" at some time or another.

Marijuana might just be the biggest cash crop in the nation & the proceeds of the sales go unregulated to whom?

Plus all the taxes we pay to support a war and criminal justice system against something that the people obviously will use regardless. What a huge waste

I would rather see Cannabis sold through legitimate businesses that pay taxes to support schools, police and roads.

Puff puff pass that Phillie.

I agree that pot is a cash crop. I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that second sentence.

Don't kid yourself that legalizing pot will pay for any support for schools, police or roads. Has alcohol taxes paid for any of that? Alcohol is the most widely available drug and the most widely taxed. It hasn't paid for anything other than state general fund welfare programs. Neither will any of your prospective pot revenues pay for anything.

The money the states got from the tobacco lawsuits wasn't spent the way it was supposed to be spent. It went into the general coffers and was spent on entitlement programs. That basically means supporting the welfare state.

States entered the gambling business years ago via lotteries with the promise that revenues will pay for schools and many other things. None of that bullshit has happened. The states are raking in billions of dollars. Taxes have still gone up...up...up...up and up over the years. There has been no tax relief. There has been no property tax relief. Yet the states are still making billions off of gambling.

What the hell makes you think legalizing pot will save you a single penny in taxation? It will eventually wind up costing you so much more money because of expanded government drug treatment programs and the expansion of the welfare state.

Let's come back to reality. No taxpayer is going to see a single penny saved by making pot legal. It will wind up costing them dearly in the pocket.

Ah, the infamous slippery slope argument. Never compelling, but a favorite of neocons everywhere. Good call, snuffie.

Good call.

The reason that those alchohol taxes and revenues from lotteries, etc. are not going directly towards what they should be is a matter of accountability in those governements and not a matter of whether or not those revenues are there. A pot tax would be the same way.

Tell us...."your last statement stating it will wind up costing them dearly in the pocket"

How?

Take the dollars spent on enforicing drug laws for pot users and dealers.

Take the tax revenue generated by legitimizing it.

Consider the boost in the economy that will come from growing, marketing, and selling it.

And consider that people who smoke pot will do it regardless of its legality. (yes, kids too).

Consider that even now, if you want to get weed, it's WIDELY available, even in schools.

Show me the down side of this that is not all cop / war on drugs propaganda that has been shoved down your throat since your teen years.

Madman, you're one of the biggest "don't beleive everything you read / consider the source" advocates here, yet on this subject, you're buying into all the bullshit the government has spewed about marijuana use.

From FARK's worst coupon contest:

"The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also — since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself — unshakeably certain of being in the right."

--George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

Its everyones obligation to tell a free person what they can and can not put in their body when it puts that persons life and health at risk.

Well done. That is an exceptionally accurate description of Madman.

Dasvedanya, Komrad! Well said!

Would you like me to hold your place in the bread line?

Read the entire essay. It's scary. You might have to sift through a lot of dated and somewhat obscure reference, but the essence of the essay is as fresh as ever. Even beyond 1984, Orwell's words have the infinite capacity to scare the living shit out of me.

Uhhh, I said bullseye...

When the general population is too ignorant and naive to realize that what they are doing is wrong; it is the requirement of a select few to protect, educate and care for the less informed.

You think you're one who decides? Were you voted in there, or just decide to take on that role for the good of humanity?

It is a basic human responsibility to care for people who can not care for themselves.

You wouldn't let a 4 year old child run around your house with a loaded gun. The boy doesn't know that the gun can kill or hurt someone he loves. It is the same in this case.

I also like Orwell, Shahram.

There is a huge problem with applying that quote to me. My position regarding legalizing marijuana is the majority position held by most people in this country.

The majority of the population does not want marijuana legal. Maybe a lot think it is OK for medical marijuana purposes, but people do not want pot to be legalized. They do not want the government telling their children it is OK to be a stoner.

That Orwell quote is more appropriate for the people on your side of this debate.

Whee.

From the same essay (It's like it was custom-written!):

"Obsession. As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organization, fills him with uneasiness which he can relieve only by making some sharp retort. If the chosen unit is an actual country, such as Ireland or India, he will generally claim superiority for it not only in military power and political virtue, but in art, literature, sport, structure of the language, the physical beauty of the inhabitants, and perhaps even in climate, scenery and cooking."

Mmmm.

Curry & taters.

I just got a stiffy.

I'm just so glad that you're here to show me how to tie my shoes. What would I do without you...whoever you are.

I can't believe I'm actually asking this question, but in this case, it seems absolutely warranted:

Why do you hate America?

Oh, him, he's one of the select few.. :rolleyes:

I don't

I do hate Sharia law though

Wow...

Yes, Ireland is a very beautiful and scenic country. They also do seem to be an attractive race of people. They have a high percentage of attractive women, especially in the South and places like Cork.

However, marijuana is illegal in Ireland.

HERE\'S Dr. Gieringers opinion on the matter. MM, where'd you get your smarts again?

That's why I'm going to Amsterdam.

And write my messages in one sentence liners.

I think it makes it look more logical.

You are now posting propaganda from a pro-drug organization like NORML.

I think you are smoking too much of that shit.

But it's okay for the government to tell their children it's okay to be a drunk, or a pill-popping shopping addict, or a big fat heart attack? Booze is legal, prescription drugs are legal, and pork rinds are legal. Legalization does not preclude endorsement. It's still legal to have anal sex, but I don't see any House Committees to promote butt fucking.

What the government endorses has very little bearing on the way I feel about any given subject, and that is a trait I will happily pass on to my son. I want the government to stop endorsing or opposing lifestyle choices, and get back to doing what they need to do.

It is not the responsibility of government to concern themselves with molding the thought processes of children. Legalization is an adult matter, and adults are not children.

It would seem that their entire argument for legalization is based soley on tax income.

I agree, there would be some tax benefits that would be incurred from the legalization of marijuana.

However, the tax benefits do not outway the overall cost that the legalization of marijuana would place on our healthcare, school systems and society in general.

Actually the Good Doctor talks about expected health costs in that article, and that they are not expected to be more than cigarettes or alcohol. But let's not get back into that. Do you really think smoking a joint is worse than a 6 pack of beer? No, because one is "socially accepted". And you're a fool to think it's not already out there "in the schools" and in the neighborhoods. And were does the profit go?

By what you've written so far, I never would have guessed it.

Hey, the Taliban were a select few who decided (with insane force) the behavior of an entire population because that population was too scattered, too unregulated, too individually empowered to regulate themselves. Isn't that what you advocate here?

Or was the Sharia Law comment directed as a dig at me because I'm of Middle Eastern descent? If it was, sweetheart, then any chance I get, I'm going to have you for fucking breakfast.

Good job, they did do that! They thought what they were doing was the right thing, and the people around them were too ignorant and stupid to realize better.

The sharia law comment really had nothing to do with anything. I was just giving you an example of something I hate. Since you seemed insistent that I hated america.

I don't think the government tells anyone it is OK to be a drunk. They spend a lot of money on public service advertising to the contrary.

We live in a representative republic and the government already tried to outlaw alcohol. The public didn't like it and demanded it be repealed and it was repealed.

There is no such demand from the public to repeal laws regarding marijuana being illegal. If there was such an outcry from the public, the government would react. Politicians do afterall want to get reelected. Most politicians in most districts get reelected by promising to crack down on drugs. That includes marijuana. Most of the public agrees.

Regarding your comment about big fat heart attacks, some governments are already starting "prohibition" laws on regulating dietary intake. Here in NYC it is now illegal to use certain types of cooking oils in restaurants that contain trans-fat. Do you agree with that government interference?

Your comment about pill popping shoppers is more indicative of a corrupt and unethical medical establishment than an indictment on government itself. Most prescription medication has valid and sometimes lifesaving uses.

Quote:

What the government endorses has very little bearing on the way I feel about any given subject, and that is a trait I will happily pass on to my son. I want the government to stop endorsing or opposing lifestyle choices, and get back to doing what they need to do.

Are you saying.... In your mind, drug use is a lifestyle choice that the government or society in general shouldn't have a vested interest?

Quote:

It is not the responsibility of government to concern themselves with molding the thought processes of children. Legalization is an adult matter, and adults are not children.

I agree with you in that statement. Unfortunately the government is involved with molding the thought processes of children in today's society. But that is a discussion for another thread and another topic.

You are assuming that if pot were legalized, total usage by the population would not increase. I tend to disagree with that assessment.

There would also be no "boost" to the national economy as a whole. Maybe some small farming communities in the South would see some more jobs, but it would not be a boon to the national economy.

The proliferation of gambling casinos across the country was full of the same promises..."It will help the ecomomy". It hasn't helped shit. Many said it would help the local economies. That hasn't happened either. Have you ever been to Atlantic City, NJ? Casinos were supposed to revitalize the entire town. That has never happened in the almost 30 years gambling has been allowed. It is beautiful in the casinos. Walk one block to the west of the boardwalk and you are in an urban blight shithole.

If pot were legalized, the cigarette companies would jump right into the business. Marijuana would also require a license to grow and market. It would be similar to how tobacco is currently handled. You would not be allowed to grow your own pot in your backyard and sell it. You can't grow your own tobacco and sell it under current law.

Any tax revenue that is derived from legalized marijuana sales would disappear into the general funds of various governments and would most likely be offset by the expense of more government run drug dependency programs and healthcare costs to treat problems related to increased pot usage.

I don't even know if you can calculate the loss to the national economy from the prospective loss of productivity. Some claim that business loses billions a year because of office web surfing and the loss of productivity that ensues. Legalized pot would most likely be far worse as far as overall productivity losses.

Quote:

Consider that even now, if you want to get weed, it's WIDELY available, even in schools.

So, you are saying you want to make it MORE widely available.

Don't parents have a hard enough time trying to keep their kids away from drugs? Now you are advocating government sanctioned availability of a drug.

It also seems that you may be in denial that pot is a "gateway drug".

How many drug and substance abuse counselors advocate the legalization of pot or any drug? Most of them are formers drug users. I don't think you find very many.

Quote:

Show me the down side of this that is not all cop / war on drugs propaganda that has been shoved down your throat since your teen years.

No "war on drugs" propaganda has ever been shoved down my throat.

I remember having similar conversations with friends as a 19 year old even while I was smoking a joint. Even while smoking pot I always thought it was the right thing that it was illegal. I never thought my desire to smoke a joint overrided the best interests of society as a whole.

Quote:

Madman, you're one of the biggest "don't beleive everything you read / consider the source" advocates here, yet on this subject, you're buying into all the bullshit the government has spewed about marijuana use.

You are correct. I don't think people should buy into everything they read and gather information from multiple sources and decide on their own.

However, regarding drugs... that includes marijuana... I think the government is on the correct side. I believe in fighting the good fight and I believe fighting against all narcotics and marijuana is the good fight.

I think you are a good guy Desert Rat. We agree on many issues. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree that we do not see eye to eye on this particular issue.

It doesn't make either of us a bad person.

:rolleyes:

(Italicized emphasis mine)

I havent been reading ALL of this, but I found something do do with taxes and the so called drug "marijuana".

Press Release: Marijuana Dealers Offer Schwarzenegger One Billion Dollars

http://stopthedrugwar.org/in_the_trenches/2007/aug/06/press_release_marijuana_dealers_#1

Actually, they spend a lot of money on advertising against drunk driving, not against actual drinking. The government has never established what parameter constitutes a drunk, what constitutes binge drinking, or what litmus test describes an alcoholic. And it doesn't matter, because you've illustrated my point. Private alcohol use and abuse, while not illegal, is neither endorsed nor opposed by the government.

Quote:

We live in a representative republic and the government already tried to outlaw alcohol. The public didn't like it and demanded it be repealed and it was repealed.

Yeah, that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that the 18th Amendment was passed by the Senate, without public referendum, under the pressure of special interest groups. The public did demand it be repealed, and it was repealed, but not before millions upon millions of tax dollars were wasted, a violent ethnic gang culture created a black market upon which crime empires were built (and which last to this day), and a culture of corruption in law enforcement pervaded every major city in the country. But, hey, that's just another way of looking at it.

Quote:

There is no such demand from the public to repeal laws regarding marijuana being illegal. If there was such an outcry from the public, the government would react. Politicians do afterall want to get reelected. Most politicians in most districts get reelected by promising to crack down on drugs. That includes marijuana. Most of the public agrees.

Actually, just to use California as an example, Prop 215 was passed by a wide margin (56%, more than any president could claim in his wildest dreams) eleven years ago, but was shot down by the Supreme Court. Politicians don't listen to the public as much as they listen to lobbyists, and the law enforcement lobby (ie the Prison Guards' Union, which is the largest opponent to legalization) and alcohol lobbies are more effective at getting politicians' attention. Since the only politicians that are pro-legalization are third-party (read: unelectable), it doesn't seem to be something coming up on the radar of our fine elected incumbents.

Beyond the speculated popularity of a national referendum on pot legalization (which will never happen), why should we even need a referendum? I don't need, or want, the masses' blessing or endorsement to make a lifestyle choice. Marijuana should not be illegal for myriad reasons, none of which are because people like it or don't like it. Justice and law are based on the Constitution, not majority rule.

Quote:

Regarding your comment about big fat heart attacks, some governments are already starting "prohibition" laws on regulating dietary intake. Here in NYC it is now illegal to use certain types of cooking oils in restaurants that contain trans-fat. Do you agree with that government interference?

Why would I? Considering what you know of my political beliefs, why the hell would I condone a fucking French Fry law?

Quote:

Your comment about pill popping shoppers is more indicative of a corrupt and unethical medical establishment than an indictment on government itself. Most prescription medication has valid and sometimes lifesaving uses.

No, my comment on pill-popping is because the government acts as a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical business. You've said so yourself--Why should you smoke marijuana and pay the hippie down the street when you can get Marinol in pill form from Solvay Pharmaceuticals?

And aside from cancer or AIDS patients who prefer smoked or rendered marijuana over the Solvay version, what about the people who get prescribed fucking happy pills? People with stressful lives can come home from a hard day's work and pop a Xanax, or a Valium, or a Zoloft, and essentially, they're self-medicating. They have a prescription because there is no government endorsed test to see who gets to have anti-anxiety meds and who doesn't, and that's because the pharmaceutical lobby in this country wants it that way.

As for pot's "safety", I can guarantee that a lot more people have died due to complications from prescribed anti-anxiety or pain management drugs than have from smoking or eating marijuana.

Quote:

Are you saying.... In your mind, drug use is a lifestyle choice that the government or society in general shouldn't have a vested interest?

Yes, drug use is a lifestyle choice. Law enforcement should stick to "victim" crimes, protecting The People from violence, fraud, and corruption, not from themselves. They should punish those who hurt others, not those who might hurt themselves. There is the inevitable argument that drugs lead people to hurt others, and if that is the case, they should be held accountable for their own actions regardless, thereby making the point moot. Drug use in and of itself should not be a crime. Or I should say that it is not a crime, though it is currently treated as such.

Quote:

I agree with you in that statement. Unfortunately the government is involved with molding the thought processes of children in today's society. But that is a discussion for another thread and another topic.

No, the idea that the government is involved in taking the role of thought molder for children away from parents and other role models is inherent to this discussion, here and now. I don't want to pay for anti-drug rhetoric propaganda in the schools, because it doesn't work, and in my opinion, it only does more damage.

I don't want my child to grow up in an environment of government-induced fear and paranoia about adult issues. It is my job to introduce my child to the world in all its marred up glory. My job to tell him what is right and what is wrong. I don't want my child to be told that because I occasionally responsibly hit the reefer, I am a fucking criminal, that I support terrorism and the murder of Colombian judges and marijuana is the gateway drug and I'll become a junkie and steal the TV and beat Mommy and all the other unfounded bullshit that comes spewing out the mouth of the Ministry. Let the government stick to what it does best--defense, infrastructure, and basic services, and let me talk to my family about drugs.

It has taken me a good long time to bleed out that D.A.R.E. Nancy Reagan Just Say No Won't Someone Think Of The Children bullshit that they pumped up my ass since I first started kindergarten. It's taken me a long time to figure out that the world is not a horrible, loathsome place, that not everyone is out to get me, and that I don't need the bosom of my mother to run to or Johnny Law to help guide me. Johnny Law can't help me. Johnny Law won't help me. And I don't need him to. I'm free.

When are you going to figure it out?

Damn Shraham, are you the same person or am I nuts, cause I agreed with everything you just said.

That has to be the best post of this thread and the best I've ever read of yours.

As I had stepped out at about pg 4, I would only add that NYMM obviously cannot find any legitimacy in opinions by anyone. Ending posts with accusations that the "Quoted" is a pothead because of their beliefs, seems rather childish. I had planned on gathering all of this up for backup, but there are much better things I'm doing, burp...

You're definately a good writer NYMM, but I don't believe you can be such a Hypocrite. Kinda reminds me of Bubba and "Well I didn't inhale.."

I'll conceded to agree to disagree and hope you don't turn your friends in to "Johnny Law".

So I guess we are now at the meat and potatoes behind your argument. You are a pot smoker.

You have every right to bring your child up any way you chose. If you think being a pot smoker is being a good role model, that is your choice, but most would tend to disagree.

However, it sounds like a lot of your opinions orbit around the fact that you like to smoke pot. You claim you are doing it "responsibly". What is "responsible" drug use as a parent?

Aren't you really just making excuses and trying to justify your own drug habit?

There are some other things you said that I was going to address. Some were sensible but some were not in light of currently known information regarding your drug activity.

You did misrepresent CA Prop 215. That was a referendum regarding medical marijuana. It wasn't a referendum legalizing pot. If it was, it never would have passed. I think you know that.

What am I being hypocritical about?

I've already stated I inhaled. I even liked it.

I am just arguing that it would be wrong for society to legalize marijuana. I am also doing it in a civilized manner.

I can't say the same for many of the people who are pro-drug and pro-legalization.

So....because I'm an occasional user of marijuana, that renders my arguments useless?

You were gonna address some of my points at face value, but because I occasionally use marijuana, an ad hominem attack will suffice?

Wow, Madman, it's sure convenient that you have plenty of fallacies to fall back on. Otherwise, you might have to [gasp] lose an argument.

But what do I know...I have a "drug habit", right? I must be one of those pothead stoner types, right?

Right?

Glad you have an out, 'cause it sure would suck to look like you got the logic beatdown from a burned out pothead like me.

If you think pot isn't good for society, then throw away all your music. Well at least 95% of it (christian rock, etc are probably the exception).

I'd like to know what else I need to be "protected" from, and frankly how is that whole thing working out for you as a whole? Seems the large scale drug dealers are making alot of money, when it could just be another regulated item available for sale at the corner bar. It's not a gateway drug. It's not chemically addictive (like nicotine or alcohol).

Yeah, and I disagree with the way lots of people raise their kids, too. But it's none of my fucking business how they raise their kids. That's the point.

Quote:

However, it sounds like a lot of your opinions orbit around the fact that you like to smoke pot. You claim you are doing it "responsibly". What is "responsible" drug use as a parent?

What is responsible drug use? Are you talking about shooting smack in front of my kid, or sharing a joint on a camping trip when my kid isn't present? Because the way you're presenting it, it's like I'm doing the former and not the latter. But to address your question, responsible drug use, as a parent, is not letting your drug use interfere with your parenting. That should be fairly obvious.

Quote:

Aren't you really just making excuses and trying to justify your own drug habit?

No, I'm actually presenting an argument that has merit. It has merit because I've addressed the issue using reason, and by reasoning, and thinking about the situation, I've come to a conclusion. I stand behind this conclusion because I have reasonably thought about it. Example: I like to eat meat. Must I, by default, lose an argument with pETA, who think that meat should be illegal, by the fact that I have a "meat habit"? Am I making excuses for my meat habit, or do I have a resonable right to believe that meat should remain legal?

Quote:

There are some other things you said that I was going to address. Some were sensible but some were not in light of currently known information regarding your drug activity.

I've addressed your ad hominem habit, which I think makes your argument weaker than my drug habit makes mine.

Quote:

You did misrepresent CA Prop 215. That was a referendum regarding medical marijuana. It wasn't a referendum legalizing pot. If it was, it never would have passed. I think you know that.

If pot prescriptions were as easily available as happy pill prescriptions, Prop 215 would essentially be a form of broad legalization, because anyone who has stress or anxiety in their lives would be the perfect candidate.

Whatever... If you have to ask, then well, just whatever...

An ex pothead will make the "best" decisions to control my life and the life of others because "he" is enlightened. :rolleyes:

No, I'm not saying because you are a stoner that any of your opinions are invalid or anything. However, regarding this particular topic of discussion, it definitely has a great deal of influence.

Look... if you want to smoke weed, go right ahead. I've never stated it makes people bad people. This discussion is about the legalization issue and I think society in general and whatever impacts that may incur.

A lot of bad people do smoke weed, but that doesn't mean I have ever thought that all smokers were bad people. I've smoked it myself. I may even smoke it again at certain times.

I'm not trying to win any argument here. I am just trying to debate a topic and present a certain side and my own viewpoint. There is no such thing as a winner in any debate on this message board.

Sharham, your meat habit is just wayyy tooo much Info. J/K

How would you know? How many pot smokers are there in the United States? Has a conclusive study ever been produced?

Quote:

There would also be no "boost" to the national economy as a whole. Maybe some small farming communities in the South would see some more jobs, but it would not be a boon to the national economy.

Oh, so besides being a research scientist and a doctor, you're now an economist? Where do you get all those degrees?

Quote:

The proliferation of gambling casinos across the country was full of the same promises..."It will help the ecomomy". It hasn't helped shit. Many said it would help the local economies. That hasn't happened either. Have you ever been to Atlantic City, NJ? Casinos were supposed to revitalize the entire town. That has never happened in the almost 30 years gambling has been allowed. It is beautiful in the casinos. Walk one block to the west of the boardwalk and you are in an urban blight shithole.

Gambling is not pot. Pot is not gambling. Stay on topic.

Quote:

If pot were legalized, the cigarette companies would jump right into the business. Marijuana would also require a license to grow and market. It would be similar to how tobacco is currently handled. You would not be allowed to grow your own pot in your backyard and sell it. You can't grow your own tobacco and sell it under current law.

Oh, so now you're a judge too? Wow, you're one multi-faceted motherfucker, Madman!

You wouldn't be able to grow your own weed? Just like I can't grow my own vegetables and herbs, because they're not FDA Approved? Oh wait, I do those things. Shit. There goes that argument.

Quote:

Any tax revenue that is derived from legalized marijuana sales would disappear into the general funds of various governments and would most likely be offset by the expense of more government run drug dependency programs and healthcare costs to treat problems related to increased pot usage.

What problems? The pot addicts and their marijuethadone? What the fuck are you talking about?

Quote:

I don't even know if you can calculate the loss to the national economy from the prospective loss of productivity. Some claim that business loses billions a year because of office web surfing and the loss of productivity that ensues. Legalized pot would most likely be far worse as far as overall productivity losses.

Are you saying that the internet has done more damage to the GDP than help? Are you fucking kidding me?

Yeah, and that's what I want my laws based on. Not an ethical test, but whether or not it helps people work harder. "Sorry, you're under arrest. Your unhealthy habits are causing irreperable harm to your individual generation of federal revenue."

Quote:

So, you are saying you want to make it MORE widely available.

He was stating a fact. Pot is easier to get in schools.

Quote:

Don't parents have a hard enough time trying to keep their kids away from drugs? Now you are advocating government sanctioned availability of a drug.

Legalization does not preclude endorsement. Yet another of your fallacies you like to pull out, the slippery slope.

Quote:

It also seems that you may be in denial that pot is a "gateway drug".

Gateway drug. I like that. That's a good one. Is stupidity a gateway drug? A lot of drug addicts are pretty stupid. Should we just round up the stupid people and charge them with Possession of an Defective Brain with Intent to Congregate?

Quote:

How many drug and substance abuse counselors advocate the legalization of pot or any drug? Most of them are formers drug users. I don't think you find very many.

Yeah, the guy whose job it is to sell people on the idea that he can help people beat drug addiction thinks drugs should stay under the jurisdiction of law enforcement, the very group that uses substance abuse counselors to sell people on the idea that drugs should stay illegal. Am I with you?

Quote:

No "war on drugs" propaganda has ever been shoved down my throat.

Oh no, Madman, we'd never assume that you're the fervent adherent of a flawed and unrepentantly, grossly mistaken philosophy of liberty and law. No, you've never led us to believe that you're a willing shill for authoritarian mentality. Never.

Quote:

I remember having similar conversations with friends as a 19 year old even while I was smoking a joint. Even while smoking pot I always thought it was the right thing that it was illegal. I never thought my desire to smoke a joint overrided the best interests of society as a whole.

So, you're a hypocrite, too? Jesus, where do you get off? If you thought it was the right thing that pot was illegal, why didn't you turn yourself in? Do you feel like you committed a crime? Doesn't that, by your own reasoning, make you a criminal? A bad person?

And while we're on the subject of society as a whole, while you were voluntary relinquishing your right to choose what you imbibe for the "good of the society" (gee thanks), did you ever wonder where that line would be drawn between what's right for the individual and what's good for society? The question is rhetorical, I know damn well you didn't.

Quote:

You are correct. I don't think people should buy into everything they read and gather information from multiple sources and decide on their own.

Oh yeah, you're a regular one man Freedom of Information Act. :rolleyes: Good Ol' Unbiased Madman, that's what we call you behind your back. Yep.

Quote:

However, regarding drugs... that includes marijuana... I think the government is on the correct side. I believe in fighting the good fight and I believe fighting against all narcotics and marijuana is the good fight.

So, all those marijuana users in prison, and that's "the good fight", huh? Glad you could smoke that joint and feel okay that what you were doing was getting other people decades behind bars, away from their families, and never having hurt another soul.

Glad you feel so good about all that. Glad you're out there fighting the good fight. 'Cause you're such a good guy, after all.

""Should the government allow cocaine, heroin, LSD and every other type of illicit drug to be freely available?""

Madman I align with you on many things.

Dis aint one.

I know that you know that this statement from you is absurd.

Completely absurd.

I can go out right now, this very minute and bring you back all of those...

And so could you.

Silly rabbit.

There aren't many people in prison for the petty offense of using pot. At least not people there because they were caught with small amounts of weed. There are many pot dealers in prison. They belong there.

What propaganda have you been reading that states misdemeanor pot offenses result in hard prison sentences? In Iran petty marijuana users may get prison sentences. It doesn't happen here. People caught with a joint or a small bag don't do serious prison time.

Some may spend some time in the lockup waiting to appear before a judge, but then again if you want to smoke pot... don't do it in public and don't act like an asshole in interactions with the police. Some stoners don't seem to grasp that concept. Maybe that is why they are stoners.

If some users have been caught up in the "three strikes" laws of some states, I've already stated those laws need to revisited and rewritten.

Everything else you have written in your previous post is nothing but complete dismissal and bordering on ad hominem.

You refuse to debate any specific points brought into this debate or any peripheral or similar type scenarios brought into the argument that have been posed by people not on your side of the debate.

You do nothing but dismiss everything. It seems you do it based solely on the fact that you smoke pot and therefore think your habit should be legal.

The biggest thing you dismiss is the fact that the general public does not want pot to be legalized. All pot users ignore that fact.

There is absolutely nothing absurd about the statement.

It seems absurd because you are taking it completely out of context. You did not include the statement from the other user of which it was a reply.

I don't believe I've seen you on the board before, so I will say welcome to XOC.

WOW....
Had to read that post 3 times, Madman..by far your most objective and rational post to date.

I am actually enjoying this Debate between 2 people with opposite views that can articulate in a way that is rare in todays modern society. Well done Gentlemen, I have no say in this debate as Marijuana in Canada can be smoked,grown,sold freely without any form of prosecution.

Again, thumbs up to both of ya

Why? Because they sold pot? If they weren't selling it to children, and they weren't committing violent or otherwise "victim" crimes in the commission of growing or selling pot, why do they belong there? The pot's got to come from somewhere. If you look at the history of pot politics in this country, it becomes painfully obvious that the government's policies have been severely reactionary.

Quote:

What propaganda have you been reading that states misdemeanor pot offenses result in hard prison sentences? In Iran petty marijuana users may get prison sentences. It doesn't happen here. People caught with a joint or a small bag don't do serious prison time.

Do you have any idea how small an amount of marijuana you need to possess to be charged with Intent To Distribute? Try looking it up sometime. There are thousands of people in prison who will remain there for a long time because they smoke a lot of weed. Some of them are people who are dying, and will not see freedom until they are shipped out in a casket.

Quote:

Some may spend some time in the lockup waiting to appear before a judge, but then again if you want to smoke pot... don't do it in public and don't act like an asshole in interactions with the police. Some stoners don't seem to grasp that concept. Maybe that is why they are stoners.

I'd agree that discretion is key in avoiding confrontation with police, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is that the justice system has overstepped its bounds. Pot smokers shouldn't be in lockup for smoking pot.

Quote:

If some users have been caught up in the "three strikes" laws of some states, I've already stated those laws need to revisited and rewritten.

Whatever.

Quote:

Everything else you have written in your previous post is nothing but complete dismissal and bordering on ad hominem.

Pot, meet kettle. You'll have no sympathy from anyone on this board in your defense of ad hominem attacks against you. You are a purveyor of fallacy, and ad hominem is your best offense.

I completely dismissed your points because they have no merit. Try writing something reasonable, and I'll be happy to consider your opinion.

Quote:

You refuse to debate any specific points brought into this debate or any peripheral or similar type scenarios brought into the argument that have been posed by people not on your side of the debate.

I felt I've held my own in this debate. If you cannot understand the points I've made, well, there's really no sense in my spoonfeeding them to you. I have a very basic argument against marijuana laws, one I believe has not been addressed with reason, but with scare tactics and fear mongering. We're a little past the dire warnings of Reefer Madness, don't you think?

Quote:

You do nothing but dismiss everything. It seems you do it based solely on the fact that you smoke pot and therefore think your habit should be legal.

Madman, today in L.A. the sky was a gorgeous shade of blue. Or was it? Maybe I'm telling you the sky was blue because I like blue skies...maybe I'm purporting my blueskyist propaganda here on this board right now, trying to convince everyone that my desired color of sky is the true sky color. Maybe I just don't see the reality, that maybe the sky is blood red, and my blueskyist tendencies have skewed my vision.

Or maybe the sky was just fucking blue.

Quote:

The biggest thing you dismiss is the fact that the general public does not want pot to be legalized. All pot users ignore that fact.

Do you not understand the basic precepts of Justice and Law? Jesus, for a "former law enforcement officer", you sure don't know that much about the law. I'm not talking about referendum. I don't care if 99% of the American public thinks pot should stay illegal. Justice does not (or at least should not) be swayed by public opinion, which is pendulous and fickle at best, and dangerously unstable at worst. Justice is not about mob rule or even majority rule. Justice is about fairness. Justice is about keeping our laws within the precepts of the Constitution.

Marijuana laws are not fair, nor do they find ethical or moral shelter in the Constitution. They are reactionary, draconian measures based on a dark history of special interest hype, pandering to distorted public perceptions, fear-mongering, and lack of regulability. They are a blight on our justice system, and we are all the worse for it.

I keep hearing over and over again that the majority of Americans want it to remain illegal.

You got any numbers on that one? Each time the medical referendum has come up in Arizona and California, it's passed. It passed in Arizona by over 60% both times and both times it was killed in the courts. I can't speak for other states, but I believe this to be a false statement.

As for Stone...he's been around here since the beginning. He, like myself, had a former run-in with the previous site owner and got banned for a while Ah, those were the days. BTW, he's also an ex cop. Hmmmm.

Let's talk about schools and kids. I have a teen with a drug problem. It's one of the worst things you'll ever go through as a parent, and no amount of coaching and direction you can provide as parents makes a difference in some cases. Arrests, fines, legal expenses, rehab....I know the whole routine, and yet I'm still for legalization. Why? Because the shit is easily obtainable regardless. The difference is there's not regulation or quality control on the shit they get in schools. I've spent many, many evenings in Intensive Outpatient therapy with a group of teens with drug issues. I was shocked to learn how many heroin addicts were in these sessions.

While I'm not that concerned about pot, the other drugs that are easy to get in schools scare me - how do you know what you're getting? Are you getting an LSD tab with a load of strycchnine on it? Are you getting Heroin or Coke cut with something else? What if they got the meth recipe wrong? Kids can and do die. At least if this shit were legalized, there would be manufacture standards and you'd know that a dangerous drug is at least clean. That might not come as much of a relief, but the bottom line is this shit is available. Anyone who wants it can get it now, and users are not concerened with legality.

None of this shit should be legal for kids. The drinking age is 21, yet how many here waited until legal age to drink? You can do the best you can with your kids in defining what they should and shouldn't do, but peer pressure is a stronger influence than parenting; I don't care how good your kids are. All you can give to your kids are the tools to make good decisions.

Having your own kids go through this shit rips your heart out. On the other hand, the legality issues....those don't help. Throw a kid in jail and he'll probably learn it's a place where he doesn't want to be, but the downside is that you've put something on his record at age 18 that'll be there hindering his opportunities for the rest of his life. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit if it's just a pot bust. In Arizona, possession of any amount of pot will net you at least 2 class 6 felonies. You'll get possession for whatever quantity you have, and whatever it's stored in (a bag, a rolling paper, a pipe - etc.) is another charge - possession of drug paraphenalia. These laws are too harsh when you consider the crime.

As for consenting adults, a lifestyle choice should not be a crime.

To Shahram's point, NYMM, by your logic, you should have turned yourself in for smoking. You think whomever you got that from (probably one of your friends) is, by definition, a drug dealer, and in your own words, you think he deserves to be locked up. Think about what you're saying. If I do it occasionally, it's OK, but other people should be treated as criminals for it.

What makes you, the few time user, any better than the chronic user who comes home after work and lights up and rides the high until he goes to bed? Who are you to judge anyone? Why should our government, or anyone else care what he does?

Sure, if he gets in the car and drives stoned out of his gourd, then he's subject to DUI laws just like a drunk. I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing for legalization that doesn't also agree that people need to still be responsible for their actions.

NYMM, thanks for the props. I'm right there with you on the political threads usually, but on this one, we're way off. I think you need to re-read some of the things you've said and reconsider your position.

Part of the problem with your statement is that you are equating legalization of pot with the medical marijuana issue. They are separate issues.

While much of the public probably would support medical marijuana, they would not support complete legalization of marijuana.

I'll go even a step further. I would say the majority of support for legalizing pot comes from white middle class and upper middle class people.

Quote:

Let's talk about schools and kids. I have a teen with a drug problem. It's one of the worst things you'll ever go through as a parent, and no amount of coaching and direction you can provide as parents makes a difference in some cases. Arrests, fines, legal expenses, rehab....I know the whole routine, and yet I'm still for legalization. Why? Because the shit is easily obtainable regardless. The difference is there's not regulation or quality control on the shit they get in schools. I've spent many, many evenings in Intensive Outpatient therapy with a group of teens with drug issues. I was shocked to learn how many heroin addicts were in these sessions.

While I'm not that concerned about pot, the other drugs that are easy to get in schools scare me - how do you know what you're getting? Are you getting an LSD tab with a load of strycchnine on it? Are you getting Heroin or Coke cut with something else? What if they got the meth recipe wrong? Kids can and do die. At least if this shit were legalized, there would be manufacture standards and you'd know that a dangerous drug is at least clean. That might not come as much of a relief, but the bottom line is this shit is available. Anyone who wants it can get it now, and users are not concerened with legality.

Considering what you have gone through, I find your position on this subject somewhat surprising.

Of course users are not concerned about legality. However, legality and more availability will create more users.

Quote:

Having your own kids go through this shit rips your heart out. On the other hand, the legality issues....those don't help. Throw a kid in jail and he'll probably learn it's a place where he doesn't want to be, but the downside is that you've put something on his record at age 18 that'll be there hindering his opportunities for the rest of his life. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit if it's just a pot bust. In Arizona, possession of any amount of pot will net you at least 2 class 6 felonies. You'll get possession for whatever quantity you have, and whatever it's stored in (a bag, a rolling paper, a pipe - etc.) is another charge - possession of drug paraphenalia. These laws are too harsh when you consider the crime.

I don't know what the laws are in Arizona, but here in NY pot is not handled the same way as other drugs. In some circumstances it is a felony, but people with small amounts for personal use receive misdemeanor charges.

Quote:

To Shahram's point, NYMM, by your logic, you should have turned yourself in for smoking. You think whomever you got that from (probably one of your friends) is, by definition, a drug dealer, and in your own words, you think he deserves to be locked up. Think about what you're saying. If I do it occasionally, it's OK, but other people should be treated as criminals for it.

When I was young I knew a couple of guys who dealt pot. If they had gotten caught, I wouldn't have felt sorry for them. You want to play, you have to be prepared to pay.

I wouldn't consider myself a criminal for smoking a joint. Yes, I broke the law. I committed a misdemeanor offense. I'm sure it wasn't the only criminal offense I committed as a kid either.

Quote:

What makes you, the few time user, any better than the chronic user who comes home after work and lights up and rides the high until he goes to bed? Who are you to judge anyone? Why should our government, or anyone else care what he does?

It makes me better because I don't have a drug dependency.

People who smoke pot on a daily basis can lie to themselves until the cows come home, but they have an addiction. They are drug addicts.

Quote:

NYMM, thanks for the props. I'm right there with you on the political threads usually, but on this one, we're way off. I think you need to re-read some of the things you've said and reconsider your position.

I don't need to reconsider my position on the subject. I think the law is fine as it stands. I think marijuana should remain a Schedule I drug and remain illegal.

Yes, we will just have to agree to disagree regarding this subject.

In Arizona you would be a multiple felon. Still think the laws make sense? Do you think the punishment fits the crime?

Are you saying that in Arizona if a cop witnesses some dude smoking a joint on a park bench... it is a felony?

Not one felony, but two. One for possession and another for possession of paraphenalia (the paper it's rolled in).

Thank you ex Gov Mecham for that one..

A friend of mine escaped the double felony and took a misdemeanor, as the joint wasn't rolled, and there was less than a gram of marijuana. However, that misdemeanor also cost almost $1300, 6 mos summary probation, and 72 hours community service.
Uhh, my friend was mad..

I would say that maybe Arizona might need to change their laws and policy to be more in line with what it is here in NY.

Here if the guy on the bench smoking a joint had no other weed, no outstanding warrants, and acted respectfully, he would in most cases receive a desk appearance ticket and be charged with criminal possession which is a misdemeanor.

The guy could also be taken into custody and put through the system but that is also contingent on the political policy of the current administration and their handling of desk appearance tickets and so-called "quality of life" crimes. For example in the early years of the Guiliani administration he most likely would have gone to central booking and through the system.

What do you typically get for a misdeminor?

Well, again, by your logic, NYMM, that law is the will of the people. There's no such thing as an approach (be it fines for possession or legalization of marijuana) that could just be a passion for an overzealous politician. Kinda reminds me of another overzealous political notion: the war on drugs itself.

Just because something is law doesn't necessarily mean the majority support it.

I say if more people actually knew what those penalties were, I'd bet the majority would say the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Hey Madman, just for the record, I'm not new to XOC.

Shoot I go back farther than Carlton and most everybody else.

Not that it matters...

So what is the punishment for a misdeminor??

HEY STONE !!!

Hey Marshall what is going on!!!!

In Illinois it takes 30+grams of weed to make it a felony. Paraphernalia is also a misd. I would give them a summons for court and likely they would just receive a fine. Just info on Illinois.

The punishment for a misdemeanor depends on the circumstances and class of misdemeanor of which you are charged.

For example if you get caught with a bag of weed that has more than 25 grams of pot, that is a Class B misdemeanor. Technically you could do 90 days in a 'pound you in the ass' correctional facility like Riker's Island. More than two ounces is a Class A misdemeanor which could bring one year in jail.

First time offenders normally wouldn't go to jail. They would be fined and something like community service would be negotiated.

The guy smoking a joint on the park bench would pay a fine and quite possibly have his case adjourned and if he stayed out of trouble for a year the case would be dismissed.

Large amounts of pot possession are felonies.

How petty offenses are handled by police most definitely do have a lot to do with the current political climate and whoever is the boss. As I said before it means the difference between a desk appearance ticket and going through the system and spending time in a filthy lockup waiting to appear before a judge.

The rest is up to the judges and the District Attorney's office. Prosecutors here in NY probably have more flexibility regarding marijuana related crimes then in some other states.

Quote:

Just because something is law doesn't necessarily mean the majority support it.

It also doesn't mean they don't.

I don't see any public outcry or movement to make marijuana legal. I'm not talking about medical marijuana, I'm talking about legalizing it.

I don't even see any public outcry to have pot removed as a Schedule I drug by the feds. That would have to occur first.

Other than pothead organizations like NORML, there is absolutely no movement to make pot legal.

Do you see a public outcry to legalize pot?

Quote:

I say if more people actually knew what those penalties were, I'd bet the majority would say the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

How harshly is pot handled in your state? I've already said that here in NYC people who commit petty marjuana offenses don't do time.

I think most people already know that if you are caught dealing pot or are caught with a large quantity, you are most likely looking at doing some time. I don't think too many people really care about those types of people.

Quote:

Originally posted by stone:

Hey Madman, just for the record, I'm not new to XOC.

Shoot I go back farther than Carlton and most everybody else.

Not that it matters...

I didn't know that. Your handle wasn't familiar and I saw you only had about 40 posts.

In that case, welcome back to XOC.

Alright, which one of you stoners in California has the real name Clifford Schaffer:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292799,00.html

Why is it that state & local governments pass stuff only to have the feds step in and try to circumvent and undo it?

The people have spoken time and time again, yet the feds want to ignore that and march to a different drum We vote for stuff on a state not federal level yet they want to take precedent. What ever happen to govt by the people?

Well... Actually state and local governments cannot pass laws that contravene the constitution, federal statutes and even US treaties.

It's called the "supremacy clause" in the constitution...

Article VI, (Clause 2)

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Quote:

The people have spoken time and time again, yet the feds want to ignore that and march to a different drum We vote for stuff on a state not federal level yet they want to take precedent. What ever happen to govt by the people?

I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to in the above statement. Some states have passed medical marijuana laws such as your state's Prop 215. Maybe that is what you are referring to regarding the people haven spoken. However, that is not legalization.

Some states have "decriminalized" possession of small amounts of marijuana. But it is still illegal.

No state can completely legalize marijuana. There would have to be a change at the federal level first in order for any state laws regarding pot to be valid.

There was a vote in Congress last week regarding pot. There was a bill introduced to stop the DEA from making raids on the so-called "medical marijuana" operations in states that have passed medical marijuana laws. The bill was defeated.

NY Madman, in your opinion, what are the benefits of keeping it illegal?

The biggest one for me is keeping the number of stoned people driving to a minimum, and harsher penalties for those who are stoned and drive.

Now lest I appear as a total anti-drug nut, I am a strong believer in medical marijuana - I had a friend go through bladder cancer, and the chemo was the absolute pits. He would get so nauseous that he couldn't even get up off the floor. It was enough to make me sick just watching him. But if he lit up a pipe and took a few hits, the nauseousness would pass and he could pretty much feel normal (well, as normal as one can feel with that poisonous shit in your veins - definitely a case where the cure is almost worse than the disease).

All it takes to have your attitude changed about medical marijuana is have someone you care about benefit from it in a significant way. I still have arguments with my parents about this :rolleyes:

There is no evidence that leads to this belief. I'd be willing to be cell phones and sleepiness cause WAY more traffic accidents than pot.

That's a valid question, so I will try to give as honest an answer as I could provide.

I'm sure most has been covered over the multiple pages of this thread.

Keeping pot illegal, keeps many people from becoming potheads. Even though pot is available on the streets, an individual still has to go out and seek the product.

The argument that pot is currently widely available and anyone who wants to smoke it will find it, is a very flawed argument. Government legalization will increase the percentage of the population who indulge in the drug.

I've already stated that most people in this thread are basing their opinions on their own personal experiences. Most people in this thread are middle class and upper middle class white people. They have absolutely no idea what a drug such as marijuana does to non-white and non-middle class people and their neighborhoods and so-called "communities".

Most people who argue in favor of marijuana have never even been in a really bad urban ghetto neighborhood. Most would completely piss their pants if they were ever dropped off in such an area.

You don't see many serious black leaders advocating for the legalization of pot... or any drug for that matter. The entire legalization movement consists of mainly white people and left wing radicals (which can also constitute many people of color, but aren't indicative of their racial groups as a whole).

The increase of the Hispanic population is also increasing demand for the product and may also be influencing the debate considering much of the product that comes from Hispanic sources.

""They have absolutely no idea what a drug such as marijuana does to non-white and non-middle class people and their neighborhoods and so-called "communities"."

[Steps away and distances himself from Madman.]

And I WAS going to quote the reason you think it should be illegal is that it will make people potheads. I laughed and laughed at that.

And then I saw the most inappropriate racial comment I've seen in some time and went with that.....

You just don't get it, stone. Madman's not a racist, he was merely implying that the poor and non-white don't have the mental capacity to self-regulate, and that's why it's up to the government to make decisions for them. If you don't agree with that, then you must be ignorant of what it's like in a real city.

There is nothing racist about what I said. It is the truth that drugs have had a much more negative impact on the black population than the white population. Are you denying that fact?

There are many reasons why this true. One reason could be that many black people don't seem to have the same support system at home and the same family structure as many white people.

That opens a much larger sociological debate where a lot of the culpability for that rests squarely in the lap of government itself. The government's so-called "war on poverty" has been extremely destructive on many levels. That is the costliest and most destructive so-called "war" ever initiated by the government. Their "war on poverty" has done nothing but destroy several generations of Americans and doom them to government dependency and a life wrought with a sense of despair.

I previously asked a question of the pro-legalization people regarding drug counselors. How many drug counselors advocate for the legalization of drugs? No one has answered that question. Everyone has avoided it. Also, how many serious black community leaders advocate for the legalization of pot? They know first hand what drugs do to their community. That includes marijuana. They know better than some white dude sitting in a nice house in suburbia smoking a bong and advocating the legalization of a drug because he thinks it is benign.

..................

I've already said that I believe legalizing pot will create a larger user base. More people will be willing to try it. More people will be willing to buy it if there were no legal ramifications involved. If you could just walk into a store and buy a pack of "joints" as easily as a six pack of beer or a pack of cigarettes, usage would undoubtedly increase. Society needs less stoners and potheads. Not more of them.

..................

Another thing to consider........... Even if marijuana were to be seriously considered for legalization, I don't think it should be considered for legalization in this country until there was a device which law enforcement could easily determine if someone is driving under the influence of marijuana on a routine car stop. Something like an alcohol breathalyser, but for pot. Possibly analyzing saliva. Something that could stand up in court. Even things like blood tests which may be required after an accident where people have been hurt, rarely stand up in court for marijuana intoxication because any good lawyer can blow that off because of the way the body metabolizes THC and the concentrations that linger in the body. Law enforcement would need some tools prior to any serious consideration of marijuana legalization.

..................

The fraud known as "medical marijuana" may also soon be taking a big kick in the ass because it seems an inhaler has been developed as a delivery device for the drug and may be approved for use in the United States in the near future.

Link to article...

Once that is approved, the "medical marijuana" fraud will loose almost all of it's steam and so-called legal and moral arguments.

Fuck off Shahram. Don't you have more pressing arguments of which to make exaggerations and falsehoods such as an illegal alien debate?

The only discussion of mental capacity that belongs in this debate is the mental capacity of chronic potheads. I think the jury is already out on that issue.

I've noticed at times you seem to claim you are a libertarian. Haven't you ever wondered why the Libertarian Party gets almost no votes in any election? They are almost a non-entity. You've never wondered why?

Maybe you people should stop equating 'liberty' with an "anything goes" type attitude and governance. Legalizing drugs, wide open borders, and everything else that basically can be considered one ladder rung above anarchy does neither equate to liberty or come close to providing it.

NY Madman, you wrote how illegal drugs like marijuana are negatively impacting the Black race and the Whites and Hispanics are the ones responsible. I say bullshit. Legal and illegal drugs negatively impact all races. Your statement comes close to claiming that the Black race is subservient to the Whites and Hispanics – I don’t think that was what you meant to convey, was it?

In response to your drug counselor argument, I say this: A drug counselor advocating the legalization of any drug is like a judge advocating the repeal of drunk driving laws – its not going to happen on principle. Secondly, any paid drug counselor will not advocate legalizing the drugs that he gets paid to counsel people on.

In response to your Black leader argument, I say this: Blacks and Whites alike would shun a Black leader that advocated the legalization of drugs. White leaders would do no better in arguing for the legalization of drugs. If leaders go too far against the “moral fabric” of society, they will cease to be leaders, instead they will become outcasts. That is why any legalization movement would have to come from the student population – just like what happened in the mid 70s with the anti-draft movement.

I do agree with you that law enforcement would have difficulty in determining impairment when it comes to being under the influence of marijuana.

I never indicted whites or hispanics for negatively impacting the black population because of drugs. Where did you pull that from?

I said the government itself has a large responsibility and culpability in wrecking the black family structure. I don't know where you would see any Hispanic involvement in that. However, white liberals do have a large culpability in this issue regarding black family structure in modern America.

Prior to the "war on poverty", black people for the most part had good family structure. There wasn't the high 70% out of wedlock birth rate that exists today. There wasn't the modern phenomenon of the non-existent fathers that proliferates in the black community today. The government's "war on poverty" and ambition to create the modern welfare state changed black America for the worse. They basically destroyed several generations of their own citizens.

The largest single reason for poverty in this country is out of wedlock births at a young age. The government has done an awful lot to enable this phenomenon. Government bureaucrats have for years actively encouraged it. It is also now considered "politically incorrect" to even openly discuss this issue. Why would that be?

The problem has morphed beyond an issue related to black people. White people also are now experiencing an explosion of out of wedlock births by young girls. As many as 30% now. That is a recipe for disaster. It's a recipe for poverty.

Hispanics have a very high rate of out of wedlock births. This problem seems to be highest among Hispanics who come here from other countries and cultures where this type of behavior is common. Hispanics are now approaching a 50% out of wedlock birthrate. To make matters worse, many Hispanics and illegal aliens come from cultures where it is acceptable for older men to have sex with very young girls. Many young Hispanic women are impregnated by older men in their life. Many of them their mother's boyfriends. In increasing numbers even a family relative. This is also another extremely negative phenomenon that is not discussed because of the evil insanity known as political correctness in our society.

Quote:

In response to your drug counselor argument, I say this: A drug counselor advocating the legalization of any drug is like a judge advocating the repeal of drunk driving laws – its not going to happen on principle. Secondly, any paid drug counselor will not advocate legalizing the drugs that he gets paid to counsel people on.

On a strictly economic basis, you would think that drug counselors may want more clients to increase their income and prospects. But then again, they don't operate on those premises, right?

Maybe their interests just lay in doing the right thing. Is that such an outdated concept?

Quote:

In response to your Black leader argument, I say this: Blacks and Whites alike would shun a Black leader that advocated the legalization of drugs. White leaders would do no better in arguing for the legalization of drugs. If leaders go too far against the “moral fabric” of society, they will cease to be leaders, instead they will become outcasts. That is why any legalization movement would have to come from the student population – just like what happened in the mid 70s with the anti-draft movement.

So, according to you, black and white leaders can't advocate for the legalization of pot because of the "moral fabric"? At least you recognize there is a moral fabric to the issue.

But, in your mind, students would be the perfect demographic to seek legalization of pot. Like anyone really cares about what students are protesting these days. Especially since they are the demographic that probably smokes the most pot.

Were you smoking when you wrote this response?

I'm not really trying to bust your balls or anything, but it seems like the support for pot legalization comes largely from those that smoke pot.

Maybe we should have a poll in this thread. State your position on legalization and also state whether or not you are a user of marijuana.

Let me get this straight...pot is to blame for out of wedlock births in this country.

Poverty rates will rise due to this social phenomenon, and family values are dwindling. To this point I will not argue. Anyone who can't see society unraveling because of this is blind.

I'm having a hard time seeing what the legality of a recreational drug has to do with this.

No. I wasn't saying that pot is responsible for the explosion of out of wedlock births and the decline of the family unit.

In my response to someone else, the conversation drifted into some sociological aspects and government.

Cough cough,, personal responsibilty. Oh yeah, we don't need that anymore, people are just victims. :rolleyes:

NY Madman, I’ve walked through many “ghettos” (northeast) and “barrios” (southwest), and have yet to piss my pants. I have friends and coworkers who live in “the projects”, and I have never felt out of place or threatened when I go to their homes.

One thing you cannot deny; some poor people regardless of race are eking out a living by selling illegal drugs. They sell to anyone of any race and/or socioeconomic status. I don’t blame them. If I had no other means, I would do what I had to do to survive. If marijuana were to be declared legal, the street value would plummet. The dealers would have to replace their income from marijuana with some other source – most likely a more profitable drug.

Well, it is really hot in Arizona, but as long as you stay hydrated, you don’t usually spontaneously combust.

Seriously though, I don’t smoke. The company that I work for has government contracts, and as such, is federally mandated to have an ongoing drug-testing program. That being said, I haven’t heard/read a valid reason why possession or use of marijuana should remain illegal.

NY Madman, no reply?

Im pretty surprised that this isnt major news in Texas but as of September 1st, the state decriminalized marijuana up to 4 oz. I think that is the right word but I could be wrong. They basically got rid of the requirement to arrest the individual (at the discretion of the officer).

Click ME

Other states should pull their heads out of their collective asses and do the same. Think of the money saved in the court system.