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.