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.