# The Legalization of Marijuana



## Rynocerous (Nov 23, 2004)

The thread 55 years has been coming to the topic of drugs and legalization of the. Up here in Canada it is becoming fairly liberal, and in most cases you just recieve a ticket, no court date. How do you all feel towards the legalization of majiuana? How close is the States, Really?

Cheers 

Ryan


----------



## raedyn (Nov 23, 2004)

Well first, let's be clear about the situation in Canada. Under current laws, a person who is found in possession of marijuana can receive a criminal conviction and even a jail sentence. However, more than half of the marijuana users that are caught by Canadian police recieve only a warning.

In 2001, 49,639 Canadians were arrested for marijuana-related crimes including possession, traffiking, etc. For comparison the US number for 2000 was 734,498. (FYI, Canada has 30 million people, the US 281.4 million - from census data). That means the US has less than 10 times the population but nearly 15 times the arrests.

There is currently no provision for giving someone a ticket for marijuana possession in Canada. At the last sitting of Parliament, the government introduced legislation that would decriminalize possession of less than 15 grams of the drug - reducing the penalties to a fine similar to a speeding ticket - but increasing the penalties for people growing and distributing the drug. The government claims to remain committed to the proposed law, but since the last sitting of Parliament there has been an election and it's now a minority government, so it may be harder to pass the legislation.

see cbc news or Justice Canada for more info


----------



## raedyn (Nov 23, 2004)

There are also provisions for licencing people with certain medical conditions to use cannabis medically, and the governement has contracted a company to grow a legal supply. Only 15% of people authorized to use the drug are authorized to recieve the government-grown supply. So most are forced to go to the black market to get the drug. According to the people who are getting the government supply, though, the quality and effectiveness are lower than what is available illlictly. Some are turning to the black market anyway.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 23, 2004)

I feel that it should be decriminalized.  To decriminalize but not legalize is basically saying that the government doesn't condone it, but won't punish you for doing it.  


I don't want the government telling me what I can or can't do with my own body (this is not the place for abortion arguments).  Supposedly, marijuana is not physically addictive, unlike cigarettes; therefore, they are in some ways better.  Marijuana has medicinal properties.  Yes, I know people can become addicted, but they can also become addicted to alcohol and gambling.  If it is not illegal, then we won't have to spend money on police trying to catch dealers, plus we can tax it, thus turning a large expense into an income.  I don't think I'd favor smoking pot in public because of the effects of second-hand marijuana smoke on children, but for the most part, I think it should be decriminalized.  I don't smoke it, and I probably wouldn't, but it should be my own choice.  In fact, I think it's better than alcohol.  I mean, if you get drunk and drive, you're quite likely to damage or kill someone or something; but, if you get high and go drive, you'll probably just get lost.  OK, I'm kidding - oversimplifying.  The cons I see are the gateway drug theory, but I'm not completely sold on it and the message that it might send which would be that drugs are OK.

I have mixed feelings about other drugs.  For example, ecstasy is sort of a mix of other drugs, but sometimes you can get a bad batch or people sell rat poison in the mix and that really isn't what you want.  If other drugs were legal, then there'd be an approved formula for them and the money that goes from illegal drug sales to foreign terrorists and druglords would simply go back into our tax system.  Legalization/decriminalization would take the demand out of it, in theory, lowering prices of it and keeping money from getting into the wrong hands (not that our government is the right hands, but you get the point  )

Good question; I haven't thought about this one for a while.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 23, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> If it is not illegal, then we won't have to spend money on police trying to catch dealers,


The current proposal in Canada would INCREASE penalties for dealers and growers (ie: longer sentences), so we wouldn't see any savings on those fronts. But we would save the $$ from ending the prosecution of possession offences - according to one estimation, $150 million per year.



> plus we can tax it, thus turning a large expense into an income.


We can only tax it if we legalize it. Decriminalization does NOT stop things from being illegal. Speeding, for example, is illegal but is not a criminal offence. Name one illegal product that is taxed.



> I don't think I'd favor smoking pot in public because of the effects of second-hand marijuana smoke on children,


Cigarette smoking is being prohibited in an ever-increasing number of venues, and I believe this is the correct choice. Smoking marijuana should be subject to the same rules.



> if you get drunk and drive, you're quite likely to damage or kill someone or something; but, if you get high and go drive, you'll probably just get lost. OK, I'm kidding - oversimplifying.


just get lost... heeheehee

Seriously, though, the proposed Canadian law would impose harsher penalties on people caught high behind the wheel or with marijuana near a school. The government announced it would dedicate several million dollars towards educating police officers to identify driving under the influence and roadside tests. But it is not clear what they are going to teach the officers as there is currently no standard symptoms or roadside screening tests as there are in case of alcohol. 



> The cons I see are the gateway drug theory, but I'm not completely sold on it


This is a confusing topic, because there are studies that have come to conflicting conclusions on this theory. The Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs examined the research on the subject and concluded that marijuana is not a 'gateway drug', but I don't know if this government body will be considered the final word on the matter.



> and the message that it might send which would be that drugs are OK.


It might have that effect. But so might the fact that the current laws are barely enforced. Better, I think, to make laws that there is a will to follow through on. Example: in my high school there was a dress code that was outdated and not enforced. As a result, there was zero control over what kids wore to school because there was, in effect, no guidelines at all. If they had created a more reasonable dress code, it may have been enforced and ultimately resulted in more tasteful dress amongst students.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 23, 2004)

I'm curious as to how the legal status of marijuana affects the psychology of the whole "gateway" drug argument.  For example, were weed legal, then experimentation up to a harder drug would entail the breaking of the law.  As it is, once you have started using marijuana, you have already crossed that line - perhaps making the "gate" that much easier (psychologically) to step through.  What I'm saying is, those who do go on to try harder drugs do so because they choose to do so, not because smoking weed compels them.  Perhaps that choice is easier to make if you already view yourself as being on the wrong side of the law.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 23, 2004)

I believe marijuana should be decriminalized, and even legalized.  I see the benefits of legalization outweighing the proffered costs by the "gateway drug" argument folks, which I'm not very sure of.

I have seen alcohol and nicotine do far worse things to people than pot - give me a group of potheads to be around any day, rather than a group of drunks.

I feel the medicinal uses have been downplayed, and need to be emphasizd more.  Why are we keeping such a valuable drug from patients who need it?

I think so much of the emphasis against pot is the "gateway drug" paranoia, which, again, I don't think is accurate.  Trying pot won't make you try other drugs.  Most of the people I've known who have tried "harder" drugs did not necessarily try pot first, but went straight to acid or ecstacy or what have you.


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Nov 23, 2004)

As far as I'm concerned it should never have been made illegal in the first place.

For lots of informative video clips, this site is quite good:

http://crrh.org/hemptv/index2.html


----------



## Lisa (Nov 23, 2004)

My head spins at whenever this subject comes up. 

 Especially with people who object to its decriminalization and then go home and drink excessively because it is okay to do so because they are over the legal drinking age.  Many of those same people smoke heavily and did so around their children for many many years.  They shout about their rights being trampled on when a "no smoking" ban is placed in public areas.  They speak freely about having the right to do whatever they want in the sanctity of their own home but get riled up over the mention of the legalization of marijuana even for medicinal purposes.  

 I know people exactly like those I mention above.  They are all one or two generations ahead of me.  Is it the generation that is so against decriminalization and will we see a change in the trend once the "baby boomers" have passed on?

 Please understand I am not pooling everyone older then me in one pile.  It is just what I have experienced.  Has anyone else?


----------



## qizmoduis (Nov 24, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to how the legal status of marijuana affects the psychology of the whole "gateway" drug argument.  For example, were weed legal, then experimentation up to a harder drug would entail the breaking of the law.  As it is, once you have started using marijuana, you have already crossed that line - perhaps making the "gate" that much easier (psychologically) to step through.  What I'm saying is, those who do go on to try harder drugs do so because they choose to do so, not because smoking weed compels them.  Perhaps that choice is easier to make if you already view yourself as being on the wrong side of the law.



You also need to account for the social situation you may find yourself in once you've begun doing marijuana.  Once you gain access to marijuana, you also have ready access to harder drugs through the same social network, including the dealers themselves.  Toss in liberal amounts of peer pressure as well.


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 24, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> You also need to account for the social situation you may find yourself in once you've begun doing marijuana. Once you gain access to marijuana, you also have ready access to harder drugs through the same social network, including the dealers themselves. Toss in liberal amounts of peer pressure as well.


Yes, but as he was saying before, it is you who is the one who gives in.  People who give into peer pressure are weak and cannot blame this on the marijuana.  I can say this because at one time I was "weak", and gave into the peer pressure.  Although I don't sit here and say,"Well if I hadn't had smoked weed I wouldn't had done harder drugs".  That is obsurd, and I became a better, stronger person for quitting cold turkey, and staying away from hard drugs ever since.  I will be upfront and say that I smoke weed occasionally(maybe once every month or two), and do not even touch hard drugs even though I have the opportunity.  I am a more mature adult then I was when I was 18, and do not give into peer pressure.  If they legalize marijuana I think that the legal age should be 21, not 18.  Just my opinion, but the majority of people are much more mature when they are that age, rather than 18. 

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## lvwhitebir (Nov 24, 2004)

How would you like airline pilots to be able to freely use marijuana?  What about school bus drivers, metro bus drivers, truck drivers, drivers in general, ...?  That's what scares me about legalization.  We have enough trouble with drunk drivers, do we have to add drugs to the mix?

I personally think it should remain illegal.  And no, I don't drink or smoke, by choice.

WhiteBirch


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 24, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> How would you like airline pilots to be able to freely use marijuana? What about school bus drivers, metro bus drivers, truck drivers, drivers in general, ...? That's what scares me about legalization. We have enough trouble with drunk drivers, do we have to add drugs to the mix?
> 
> I personally think it should remain illegal. And no, I don't drink or smoke, by choice.
> 
> WhiteBirch


Are airline pilots who fly under the influence of alcohol tolerated?  Yet alcohol remains legal....

Once again, damning the substance, rather than the abuser.  Your fright is unwarranted.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 24, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Once you gain access to marijuana, you also have ready access to harder drugs through the same social network, including the dealers themselves. Toss in liberal amounts of peer pressure as well.


sure, it happens. But it's a bunch of horse-puckey to say this is how it always is. I've been around people 'getting high' plenty of times and I have never experienced "peer pressure". I have never even experienced peer pressure to have a cigarette. Maybe I just hung out with wierd people.

I often hear these stories about the big boogey-man of peer pressure and I think it's a bunch of bunk. I don't discount that when you are a teenager (espeically early teens) that if there was a group of people trying to get you to do something that it would be difficult to resist, but I just don't believe that it's happening all the time everyday to every kid. And, once you get past a certain age/developmental stage, you aren't nearly as susceptible to those influences. Or at least, I wasn't. Maybe I was just a weird kid. *shrug*

I wouldn't claim there aren't bad people out there, but these scare stories of all the drug dealers out to get all the good law abiding boy and girls...


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 24, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> How would you like airline pilots to be able to freely use marijuana? What about school bus drivers, metro bus drivers, truck drivers, drivers in general, ...? That's what scares me about legalization. We have enough trouble with drunk drivers, do we have to add drugs to the mix?
> 
> I personally think it should remain illegal. And no, I don't drink or smoke, by choice.
> 
> WhiteBirch


I personally know a shcool bus driver in Las Vegas who is the hardest drinking Irishman I have ever known, but he is responible enough to not drink the night before he has to drive. This is because he is mature, and can make a rational decision about it. To say that we have to worry about these people being high all the time when it is legalalized is obsurd. I personally think that people can be mature about the use of it. Although just like with booze, we will always have people out of control. Does that mean we should criminalize alcohol? What would Canada do? How would we stay warm? Oh my God!!! Mental Breakdown!!! Please God never let that happen...
Joking aside I think that to say that the world is going to collapse and everyone is going to be abusers is obsurd. I realize this wasn't what you were saying but a point I like to make. 

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## psi_radar (Nov 24, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> How would you like airline pilots to be able to freely use marijuana?  What about school bus drivers, metro bus drivers, truck drivers, drivers in general, ...?  That's what scares me about legalization.  We have enough trouble with drunk drivers, do we have to add drugs to the mix?
> 
> I personally think it should remain illegal.  And no, I don't drink or smoke, by choice.
> 
> WhiteBirch



Truckers prefer speed over weed--they need to stay up and be alert. Just because something's legalized doesn't condone its use when unappropriate. Drinking is legal, drinking and driving is not. If smoking marijuana was legal, smoking and driving still would not be. People in the travel industry are frequently drug tested anyway.

Marijuana should be legalized. It would provide a new tax source, empty our prisons of non-violent offenders, and provide a new crop that has an abundance of practical uses. Legalization would also reduce minors' access to the drug. I don't know about you guys, but when I was a teen it was a heck of a lot easier to get weed than it was to get alcohol, since there was regulation in place on alcohol and not on marijuana. Comparing the positives and negatives of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana, marijuana comes out on top. 

As for when this might happen, I'd say it'll take a while. It'll take a lot of people candidly telling their representatives that they want it, and a good portion of people sensibly don't want to be labeled a drug user in their communities. We'll see.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 24, 2004)

I have mixed feelings on the subject. Clearly Marijuana is responsible for much of the A-Motivational syndrome that plagues many people these days; however, the case of beer a day people are no better and always more dangerous. However, no parent wants to see there children choose to be dysfuntional potheads, therefore it will always be illeagal in the US. This brings us to people whom are sick and in pain. I want them to have access marijuana and even heroine if need be and I greatly resent the idea of some poor guy living in pain because some parent wants there kid to haver career. Why should people have to live in excrusiating pain, when a little H pack on there hip could keep them working and continuing to be functional members of society? I will vote accordingly, but I accept things ain't gonna change in my lifetime.
Sean


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Nov 24, 2004)

*lvwhitebir: "How would you like airline pilots to be able to freely use marijuana? What about school bus drivers, metro bus drivers, truck drivers, drivers in general, ...?"*

I have no problem with that. Heck, if their job is stressful, I would like for them to relax with a bong-toke or two. As long as they aren't doing it on the job, there is very little risk to the public.

*"That's what scares me about legalization. We have enough trouble with drunk drivers, do we have to add drugs to the mix?"*

Well to be fair, we would either have to ban alcohol (tried that before didn't we?), or legalize other drugs. Anything less is hypocricy.

The way I see it, if someone is driving under the influence, it isn't the alcohol or other drug that's to blame - it's the driver. As far as I'm concerned it's just a case of driving under hazardous conditions; it's the same as if someone was driving fast in heavy rain - what are we going to do? make rain illegal?

It's about personal responsibility. If someone wants to get drunk, get stoned, get high, get tweaked, trip, roll, . . . whatever - who cares? If they are going to threaten other peoples' lives by operating heavy machinery under the influence then they (not the drug) has committed a crime (putting other people in jeopardy).

Legalizing drugs will not increase the number of people that do them, nor will it automatically make people think it's ok to do them in unsafe conditions. It will however reduce crime (by lowering the price and reducing the desire to steal to afford the substance, and also by taking business away from black market dealers who would be unable to compete).

In the case of hemp, if everyone were allowed to grow it themselves, there would be no need for any black market or any drug dealing whatsoever (except for those super lazy pot heads that don't want to do a little gardening). Anyone that wanted to smoke weed could grow it themselves the same way people grow their own tomatoes or carrots.


----------



## Deuce (Nov 24, 2004)

I support the idea of people being charged for driving and smoking weed, similar to the alcohol laws. But, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't an accurate test for marijuana consumption. Sure, you can get tested for the drug, but marijuana can stay in your system for months at a time, even if you're not presently high when being tested. 

I know there are many physical signs of being under the influence of marijuana, but an accurate determination of effective THC levels in the body will be needed to charge someone with driving under the influence.

This is similar to the drug and alcohol testing I had to do in order to get my current job. I wasn't drunk or high at the time of testing, but if I was a regular weed smoker, I would have failed and not received the job. The alcohol test was no problem, because it leaves your body quickly.

There are too many variables to consider when trying to determine if someone failed a drug test because of weed they smoked three hours ago, or three weeks ago.


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 24, 2004)

> Truckers prefer speed over weed--
> 
> People in the travel industry are frequently drug tested anyway.


LOL, poet & didn't know it? Very true with the drug testing.



> Marijuana should be legalized. It would provide a new tax source, empty our prisons of non-violent offenders, and provide a new crop that has an abundance of practical uses. Legalization would also reduce minors' access to the drug. I don't know about you guys, but when I was a teen it was a heck of a lot easier to get weed than it was to get alcohol, since there was regulation in place on alcohol and not on marijuana.


The reason is because any average Joe can grow weed and sell it to minors. Very few people actually make beer with the intent to sell it to minors for profit. Weed will always be easy for minors to access, although, if we legalize maijuana, like you said the black market will take a hit. Though do you really think it will be cheaper than black market prices? Cigarettes up here in Canada are up to 11 dollars a pack, and still rising. Just speculating but I wouldn't doubt that if it were legal it would cost even more. In this case I think it is hard to use that as an argument because minors will always have access to booze, smokes, weed, X, coke, etc. I think it's up to the parents and the school to educate the children at a young age on the affects of drugs. Now I realize most kids like to rebel against "society" and do drugs in spite, and there is nothing that we can do. In those cases it is sad but they need to learn the hard way(the back of your hand!!).



> a good portion of people sensibly don't want to be labeled a drug user in their communities. We'll see.


This is a very good point. I know several very important people that smoke weed, but keep it in the dark because will frown upon it. I had a doctor once that smoked weed, and was a very good doctor. I mentioned my friend the bus driver in an earlier post. My point is that most people that I know(and that is a lot) actually smoke weed secretly. I don't think that society should look down on people for the use of this drug. I don't look down on anyone for having a morning coffee, or a beer or two after work, or a cigarette here and there. These are all on the same line in my eyes, and if they want to keep marijuana illegal, then try and outlaw cigarettes, and booze. Just my opinions.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Deuce (Nov 24, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> ... and if they want to keep marijuana illegal, then try and outlaw cigarettes, and booze.


 
Hey man!! Don't talk crazy! Weed is alright, but it ain't no cigarettes and booze. You can outlaw cigarettes as soon as I quit.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 24, 2004)

But don't outlaw freakin' booze... we all drink too damn much of it! *wink*


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 24, 2004)

:btg: 


If it came off as serious, please do as the smileys...

:wah: I just couldn't live without my booze!!!

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 24, 2004)

It's funny - this reminds me of a conversation I overheard in an airport shuttle bus yesterday.  One gentleman (who wanted to keep talking, apparently) was talking to another man he had apparently just met, about sleeping, and how sleep-deprived most people are.  (Which I had no argument with, although he was quoting statistics left and right I had never heard before, but that's another story.)

Anyways, the gentleman he was talking to agreed that a lot of sleep is a good thing, but some days he could only get 2-3 hours of sleep, because of his work schedule.  And then they started talking about caffeine, and how people drink it so much.  The sleep-deprived person said, "I have to have my caffeine!  I can't function without it!"

As a nice example - between nicotine, caffeine, or alcohol, almost every person one interacts with is likely to be on a stimulant or depressant at some point during their day.  Another reason I find it so weird at how negatively some folks react to pot.  Most pot-smokers I know and have knwn don't smoke so much that they cannot function, but use it as other who have a glass of wine or something at the end of a long day - as a self-medicating means to relax.

And, as was mentioned earlier and I completely forgot to follow up on, I think our prisons should be emptied of the pot users - it's asinine.


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 24, 2004)

Not to mention that it costs the tax payers millions of dollars in court related fees alone.  It shouldn't be punished unless it is a huge amount.


Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## psi_radar (Nov 24, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> LOL, poet & didn't know it? Very true with the drug testing.
> 
> The reason is because any average Joe can grow weed and sell it to minors. Very few people actually make beer with the intent to sell it to minors for profit. Weed will always be easy for minors to access, although, if we legalize maijuana, like you said the black market will take a hit. Though do you really think it will be cheaper than black market prices? Cigarettes up here in Canada are up to 11 dollars a pack, and still rising. Just speculating but I wouldn't doubt that if it were legal it would cost even more. In this case I think it is hard to use that as an argument because minors will always have access to booze, smokes, weed, X, coke, etc. I think it's up to the parents and the school to educate the children at a young age on the affects of drugs. Now I realize most kids like to rebel against "society" and do drugs in spite, and there is nothing that we can do. In those cases it is sad but they need to learn the hard way(the back of your hand!!).



Anyone CAN grow weed, but it's also quite difficult for a minor to do an indoor operation without their parents getting wind (ha ha) of it. "Hey Mom, that's just my pet invisible skunk!" And would anyone really grow their own if Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds produce products that are heavily marketed, convenient, and available at a reasonable price? Probably the same proportion of people that only drink their own homebrew beer. The prices will surely be much lower than they stand today. Even with marketing and packaging costs, mass produced marijuana will be cheaper simply because it can be done in the open and with industrial growth practices at work. The black market prices you see today aren't indicative of the price of manufacture, buy instead are fueled by risk + supply and demand. 

I agree that education is a good way for kids to understand what they're doing with their bodies when they experiment, but it won't keep them from experimenting. Humans have been seeking a buzz as long as our historical record can track. I don't think we'll stop anytime soon. This is another reason prohibition doesn't work--there will always be a demand for drugs. If we spent half the money on treatment and education that we do on enforcement, drugs wouldn't be such a blight on our society.



> This is a very good point. I know several very important people that smoke weed, but keep it in the dark because will frown upon it. I had a doctor once that smoked weed, and was a very good doctor. I mentioned my friend the bus driver in an earlier post. My point is that most people that I know(and that is a lot) actually smoke weed secretly.



*Ahem*, I don't know what you're talking about, I know all about this just from academic research. What you're saying is absolutely true, from my experience. Some years ago I read a survey that stated somewhere along the lines of 80% of Americans had tried dope at some point in their lives. Yet we continue to put people in jail for behavior we have most likely participated in, or services we demanded ourselves. Around here, it's not an immediate disqualification on a patrolman's application to admit to smoking at some point. Interesting little bit of hypocracy we've got going on here.

[/QUOTE]
These are all on the same line in my eyes, and if they want to keep marijuana illegal, then try and outlaw cigarettes, and booze. [/QUOTE]

Them's fighting words!


----------



## psi_radar (Nov 24, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I think our prisons should be emptied of the pot users - it's asinine.



Hear Hear!


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 24, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Anyone CAN grow weed, but it's also quite difficult for a minor to do an indoor operation without their parents getting wind (ha ha) of it. "Hey Mom, that's just my pet invisible skunk!" And would anyone really grow their own if Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds produce products that are heavily marketed, convenient, and available at a reasonable price? Probably the same proportion of people that only drink their own homebrew beer. The prices will surely be much lower than they stand today. Even with marketing and packaging costs, mass produced marijuana will be cheaper simply because it can be done in the open and with industrial growth practices at work. The black market prices you see today aren't indicative of the price of manufacture, buy instead are fueled by risk + supply and demand.
> 
> I agree that education is a good way for kids to understand what they're doing with their bodies when they experiment, but it won't keep them from experimenting. Humans have been seeking a buzz as long as our historical record can track. I don't think we'll stop anytime soon. This is another reason prohibition doesn't work--there will always be a demand for drugs. If we spent half the money on treatment and education that we do on enforcement, drugs wouldn't be such a blight on our society.
> 
> ...


These are all on the same line in my eyes, and if they want to keep marijuana illegal, then try and outlaw cigarettes, and booze. [/QUOTE] 
Them's fighting words!
[/QUOTE] 
:whip:   LOL, rolling on the floor.  Although I disagree that weed will be cheaper.  In Canada they will tax the hell out of anything to get money, don't be suprised if it is legalized there is some kind of huge levy, or tax.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Nov 24, 2004)

*Rynocerous: "Though do you really think it will be cheaper than black market prices?"*

If natural economic forces are in control then yes. The only reason it wouldn't be is if the companies that sell legal weed decide to keep their prices the same as street prices since that's what people have been happily paying for so long anyway. The motivation for that of course is to make more money. However, if that happened, then buyers would be more likely to just stick with the black market in order to avoid taxes. 

I guess the only other reason would be if the price of the product itself goes down, but government regulated taxes put the total cost above street cost. The outcome would be the same. No one would buy legal weed 'cause the dope dealer on the corner has more competitive prices.

All the above is assuming that no one will just decide to grow their own.

To be competitive, legal marijuana-selling companies would have to charge less. In addition, they would have to make the buying of their specific product convenient enough or otherwise attractive, so that people choose to buy their produce at a store instead of growing it themselves.

*"The reason is because any average Joe can grow weed and sell it to minors."*

Then just keep sale to minors illegal, but allow people to grow for personal use. Heck, even if someone wanted to grow large amounts to sell to adults, it'd be the same as if I grew numerous rose bushes and sold bouquets of flowers to people. The government would miss out on sales tax, but they already do on other tax-free items like produce and other foods. But since it can be used as a drug, sale to minors should probably be restricted.


*Deuce: "I support the idea of people being charged for driving and smoking weed, similar to the alcohol laws. But, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't an accurate test for marijuana consumption. ... I know there are many physical signs of being under the influence of marijuana, but an accurate determination of effective THC levels in the body will be needed to charge someone with driving under the influence."*

I was thinking the same thing, but I think the solution would be to ignore whatever the person has inside their body, and instead just look at how they are driving. Whether they are under the influence or not, if they are swerving, running stop signs, or driving on the sidewalk, then they are driving dangerously.

*psi_radar: "Anyone CAN grow weed, but it's also quite difficult for a minor to do an indoor operation without their parents getting wind (ha ha) of it. "Hey Mom, that's just my pet invisible skunk!" And would anyone really grow their own if Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds produce products that are heavily marketed, convenient, and available at a reasonable price? Probably the same proportion of people that only drink their own homebrew beer. The prices will surely be much lower than they stand today. Even with marketing and packaging costs, mass produced marijuana will be cheaper simply because it can be done in the open and with industrial growth practices at work. The black market prices you see today aren't indicative of the price of manufacture, buy instead are fueled by risk + supply and demand."*

Very good points there. The reason why cigarette prices are going up is because of prohibitive taxes - which obviously hasn't done anything to get people to quit or smoke less. Nicotine is physically addictive, people will pay anything to get their fix. If the same thing happened with marijuana, people would either quit because it's too expensive, or just grow their own. I don't think tobacco is as easy to grow or process.

Again, the high cost of cigarrettes have nothing to do with whether they are legal or not. Imagine if tobacco became as illegal as marijuana - it would definitely be a schedule one drug because there is no medical use for it* - sales would go underground and the price of a pack of cigarettes could easily jump to 50 or 100 $$ or more because of black market forces ("risk + supply and demand").

* actually I believe tobacco does have some medical benefit. The stress-relieving / calming effect it has on both the mind and body makes for good mental health. I also believe marijuana has even more and better medical uses, yet I'm sure if both were illegal they would be in the same category as heroine and cocaine (which also have medical uses). 

Just the fact that every other drug in existance (legal or not) is more dangerous than marijuana is enough to make any argument about drugs being illegal for medical reasons completely stupid.

*Rynocerous: "In Canada they will tax the hell out of anything to get money, don't be suprised if it is legalized there is some kind of huge levy, or tax."*

Believe me, the U.S. government is just as greedy for $$, but I still don't think it would make sense. Economic forces of supply and demand and competitiveness would drive people to buy whatever is cheaper and more convenient.

Case in point: In many areas of the U.S. prices of cigarettes have been rising sharply. In some states they have gone from $2 a pack to $4 a pack or more. In New York, I hear the prices are ridiculous. In places like the carolinas, however, the prices are still reletively low, so you know what happens? People travel to where the cigarettes are cheapest, buy in bulk, and then return to their home state to sell cigarettes on the black market.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 25, 2004)

Shizen Shigoku said:
			
		

> People travel to where the cigarettes are cheapest, buy in bulk, and then return to their home state to sell cigarettes on the black market.


This happens In Canada, too. But I don't know in what quantities. If you think $4 for a pack of smokes is steep, though try coming here! Prices across the country are _minimum_ $10/20pk.


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Nov 25, 2004)

Another reason I'm glad I don't smoke!


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 25, 2004)

This is why I quit smoking. Actually in many Canadian cities you are not allowed to smoke in public buildings. Here in my city it is changing over Jan. 1st, and I personally can't wait. If they legalized marijuana, I feel that it should only be smoked in "Hemp shops", and at the privacy of your own home. Some people will chose to not smoke it and shouldn't have to breathe in the second hand smoke. I know if I was having a buisness luncheon with an important client, I wouldn't want to have someone "hotboxing" me getting me high! LOL, I would probably be more worried about eating than dealing with the client... :ultracool 

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## raedyn (Nov 25, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> Actually in many Canadian cities you are not allowed to smoke in public buildings.


We sure as hell aren't on the leading edge of this. In California you couldn't smoke in any public building or within a certain distance of the entrance to any of those buildings since before 1997! It's about bleepin time that we showed up to the party!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 27, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> How would you like airline pilots to be able to freely use marijuana?  What about school bus drivers, metro bus drivers, truck drivers, drivers in general, ...?  That's what scares me about legalization.  We have enough trouble with drunk drivers, do we have to add drugs to the mix?
> 
> I personally think it should remain illegal.  And no, I don't drink or smoke, by choice.
> 
> WhiteBirch




Let's not say "drugs"...let's say marijuana.  Nobody here has advocated for the decrimilization of methapmetamine.

Those drivers and pilots that don't use alcohol do so out of a sense of responsibility and a fear of retribution should they get caught.  When an airline pilot gets popped for being drunk he gets fired.  His career is ruined.  So MOST pilots stay clean.  Its reasonable to believe the same pattern would follow with dope.  It is currently illegal to fly a plane while drunk or stoned.  Make dope legal, but retain the proscription against flying a plane while under its influence.  What has changed?  Nothing but what the pilot/driver can do on his offtime.

My father drank himself to death.  He died alone, puking blood.  He was six feet tall and weighed less than my mother at 125 pounds.  He refused to eat, only drank.  In his final days he was often incontinent, drinking himself into such a stupor that he'd mess himself.  Nobody I know of has ever died as a direct result from smoking dope.  

Alcohol causes one traffic fatality ever thirty minutes in this country.  A quarter of a million people will die in the next decade because of that.  Traffic crashes are the greatest single cause of death for persons ages 633. About 45% of these fatalities are in alcohol-related crashes.  300,000 people in the next year will be injured.  Many will be maimed.

When you add in drunk drivers, a total of 100,000 people will die of alcohol related problems in the next year due to falls, toxicity, liver failure.  _Alcohol kills 6½ times more youth than all other illicit drugs combined._
A meta-analysis of the data indicates that alcohol is implicated in violent altercations as follows:

Between 28% and 86% of homicide offenders were under the influence.

Between 24% and 37% of assault offenders were under the influence.

Between 13% and 60% of sexual offenders were under the influence.

Between 6% and 57% of male domestic violence assailants and between 10% and 27% of female domestic violence victims were under the influence.

And am I for alcohol prohibition?  Hell no.  

People rarely get into fights when they're stoned.  They tend to drive very slow.  And they don't O.D. on pot or die of liver failure.  Is it healthy?  No.  Is it as dangerous as alcohol?  Not even close.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Nov 29, 2004)

Yes, it is incredibly obvious that health and safety have nothing to do with the prohibition of marijuana.

Research into the history of how it became illegal in the first place is very enlightening into reasons why it is likely still illegal now.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 29, 2004)

Just curious (and lazy) - what were the historical reasons for making marijuana illegal?


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 29, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> People rarely get into fights when they're stoned. They tend to drive very slow. And they don't O.D. on pot or die of liver failure. Is it healthy? No. Is it as dangerous as alcohol? Not even close.


I have to wonder how those numbers would change if it was legal.  I mean if you look at who the offenders are, I am willing to bet most of them were under the ifluence of alcohol because it is easy to obtain.  If you make weed just as easy to obtain, I think it could become just as big of a problem.  And they may drive slow when they are stoned, but they also drive stupid and are just as dangerous as drunk drivers from what I have seen.  I think it is as dangerous as alcohol, but we just haven't seen the full impact of it because it is illegal at the moment.
I am all for medicinal uses, but complete decriminalization I think opens a pandora's box.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 29, 2004)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> I have to wonder how those numbers would change if it was legal.  I mean if you look at who the offenders are, I am willing to bet most of them were under the ifluence of alcohol because it is easy to obtain.  If you make weed just as easy to obtain, I think it could become just as big of a problem.  And they may drive slow when they are stoned, but they also drive stupid and are just as dangerous as drunk drivers from what I have seen.  I think it is as dangerous as alcohol, but we just haven't seen the full impact of it because it is illegal at the moment.
> I am all for medicinal uses, but complete decriminalization I think opens a pandora's box.


I'm sure that it's been said here before that Marijuana is a gateway drug; opening the door to harder substances like cocaine and crack and etc. That it's a milder drug than the rest is just down-playing the long term effects, look at Ozzy for example or Keith Moon. Like alcohol some people can use it in small amounts (like a beer or two a day) with little effect on their day to day lives. Some people can use it in large amounts (like a six pack over the weekend) with little effect and some people can use it in copious amounts (like a binge) with little effects. But that's some people. In my experience I've seen marijuana make effective hard-working people into lazy, shiftless ones because of the numbing effects it has. 
It's a drug, it's a psychotrophic drug and it has it's dangers like every other drug out there, either long or short term.  
When I was using and abusing that was my DOC (drug of choice) because of the mellowing effects it had on an otherwise stressful day at work. Problem is that it's addicting (just like every other drug...including alcohol) and most of my money by week's end was spent on it than the necessities, you know, rent, food, and stuff like that. 
While not everyone "loses it" because they smoke the stuff... the numbers are too small to effectively convince law-makers that it's okay enough to legalize it.  Prohibition was recended because the law-makers were tired of breaking their own law, that and the violence and other problems making alcohol illegal. 
Like Ping said... it just opens Pandora's box if this "Ok drug" gets legal. 
You'll see other people saying hey, lets make Crack legal too so guys won't be out there breaking into people's houses and jacking cars to get their drug. Then cocaine then heroin then ... the list goes on. 
As a recovering addict of 15 years, I speak from experience that legalizing Marijuana .... is... not... a... good... idea! 

my two bits on it.
 :asian:


----------



## psi_radar (Nov 29, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> ....
> Like Ping said... it just opens Pandora's box if this "Ok drug" gets legal.
> You'll see other people saying hey, lets make Crack legal too so guys won't be out there breaking into people's houses and jacking cars to get their drug. Then cocaine then heroin then ... the list goes on.



I'm for drug legalization beyond just marijuana. Regulation removes the black market and the violence surrounding the trade. Addiction needs to be treated on a medical level, not the judicial. 



> As a recovering addict of 15 years, I speak from experience that legalizing Marijuana .... is... not... a... good... idea!



Though I sympathize with you, I don't agree. It sounds like you had pretty good access to this drug even though it is/was illegal. Those who want access to drugs will always find a way. Though use might spike with legalization, demand after a time will settle down to people who would have used it while it was illegal anyway. In addition, the quality and potency of the drugs can be monitored to ensure safety and consistency.

Nobody really wins when nonviolent offenders are put into jail. We pay for their imprisonment, we don't receive their taxes while they're inside. With legalization, the same use behavior will continue, but we would be able to afford and address treatment by dismantling a good chunk of our criminal "justice" system and help addicts turn their lives around rather than becoming career criminals.


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 29, 2004)

> I'm sure that it's been said here before that Marijuana is a gateway drug; opening the door to harder substances like cocaine and crack and etc. That it's a milder drug than the rest is just down-playing the long term effects, look at Ozzy for example or Keith Moon.


So you are telling me that Ozzy is the way he is because he smoked weed? That's crazy talk, or maybe I misread your post...Ozzy did a lot more than just weed!!!



> Like alcohol some people can use it in small amounts (like a beer or two a day) with little effect on their day to day lives. Some people can use it in large amounts (like a six pack over the weekend) with little effect and some people can use it in copious amounts (like a binge) with little effects. But that's some people. In my experience I've seen marijuana make effective hard-working people into lazy, shiftless ones because of the numbing effects it has.


Like I posted before, it is up to the person on how they use the drug. If they choose to smoke the dope all the time and become lazy, then it is because they, as a person chose to. Booze has the same "numbing effects", whether we like to admit it or not. On a lighter note, I must drink more than I thought!  Esspecially if a six pack over the weekend is heavy! LOL, man Ryan you gotta slow down, your liver is scraming at you, "For the love of God STOP!!!". :drinkbeer



> It's a drug, it's a psychotrophic drug and it has it's dangers like every other drug out there, either long or short term.


Yes, although the dangers are much less than many others, including Alcohol.



> When I was using and abusing that was my DOC (drug of choice) because of the mellowing effects it had on an otherwise stressful day at work. Problem is that it's addicting (just like every other drug...including alcohol) and most of my money by week's end was spent on it than the necessities, you know, rent, food, and stuff like that.


I personally disagree, people can say that weed is addictive until they are blue in the face but I refuse to believe that. Never have I heard anyone say that they actually have a physical dependancy for weed to operate properly. NEVER! Nor experienced that(believe me if anyone should had been addicted, it should had been this guy)
They may say "boy I could use a joint" or "I could go for a hoot."



> While not everyone "loses it" because they smoke the stuff... the numbers are too small to effectively convince law-makers that it's okay enough to legalize it. Prohibition was recended because the law-makers were tired of breaking their own law, that and the violence and other problems making alcohol illegal.
> Like Ping said... it just opens Pandora's box if this "Ok drug" gets legal.
> You'll see other people saying hey, lets make Crack legal too so guys won't be out there breaking into people's houses and jacking cars to get their drug. Then cocaine then heroin then ... the list goes on.


Actually on a different note, in Vancouver, the Canadian Government passed out free "safe heroine fixes" controled by nursses in hopes to lower cime rates. 



> As a recovering addict of 15 years, I speak from experience that legalizing Marijuana .... is... not... a... good... idea!
> 
> my two bits on it.


I absolutly respect your opinion, which you are totally entitled to. 

Although I personally disagree. No big deal man, that's why they make chocolate and vanilla ice cream. No hard feelings?  

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Mathusula2 (Nov 29, 2004)

Shizen Shigoku said:
			
		

> * actually I believe tobacco does have some medical benefit. The stress-relieving / calming effect it has on both the mind and body makes for good mental health. I also believe marijuana has even more and better medical uses, yet I'm sure if both were illegal they would be in the same category as heroine and cocaine (which also have medical uses).
> 
> Just the fact that every other drug in existance (legal or not) is more dangerous than marijuana is enough to make any argument about drugs being illegal for medical reasons completely stupid.



I performed a search on a medical journal database called medline from 1966 to present and to the best of my knowledge (according to my results of the search) there is no medical benefit to nicotine/tobacco.  The stress relieving effect you are refering to is actually relief of nicotine withdrawl symptoms.  

People, marijuana is not a benign substance.  Psycholigical dependence does occur with it.  As far as medicinal benefits are concerned, I do believe that in a certain population it's use as a "painkiller" may be warranted but it should be limited to only those few (who generally are terminal) and would probably be made a class 2 controlled substance.  In addition, casual use as one would abuse a cigarette would only cause a greater incidences of heart disease (10x the carbon monoxide than that of a cigarette) and mouth/tongue/throat/lung/just about any other cancer and an increase of chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema (2x the tar than that of a cigarette).  Second hand smoke, even in a smoke-filled room such as a bar (not anymore in NY, thank goodness) does not cause psychological effects on a second-hand smoker, while second-hand marijuana smoke is more likely to affect those around you.

Delta-9-THC is an approved medical substance in just about any pharmacy.  The brand name is Marinol, and is used primarily for... drum roll please... giving people the munchies!!!  Yes, it is an appetite stimulant (this just in...).
It also is used for controlling nausea and vomiting.

Another interesting tidbit... Have any of you seen the news reports (CNN, MSNBC, Fox have all had some report on this about 3 weeks or so ago) about this "miracle drug" that lowers cholesterol, causes weight loss, saves the world from tyranny, etc.?  It actually works by blocking cannabiniod recepters... in other words it's an anti-marijuana!  This does also imply that chronic marijuana use would raise cholesterol levels, make us even fatter, creating even more heart disease......................

Just some thoughts on the drug itself -- people often make the case "I don't want the government telling me what I can/cannot smoke, it doesn't effect anyone but me!!"  But all of the increased heath risks associated with marijuana effects the whole healthcare system (or what's left of it), as well as our pocketbooks -- yes, less will be spent prosecuting criminals but more will be spent in terms of healthcare dollars.  Whew.  Sorry for the longwindedness.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 29, 2004)

*That it's a milder drug than the rest is just down-playing the long term effects, look at Ozzy for example or Keith Moon. * 

I think its safe to say they stacked some other drugs as well, don't you?  

*It's a drug, it's a psychotrophic drug and it has it's dangers like every other drug out there, either long or short term.  * 

Compare them with nicotine and alcohol.  Then look at the numbers of people incarcerated and whose lives are ruined for using pot.  Its hypocritical.  We're burning the village in order to save it.  

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/marijuana/news.jsp;jsessionid=DCOFAHKDHMKK

37 percent of Americans 12 and older have tried the drug.  That's 83 million Americans.  Where are the hordes of addicts?  When I was a Drug and Alcohol Abuse Control Officer in the Marine Corps in the early eighties, a survey showed 88% of the young men of recruitable age had tried the stuff.  Where are all the addicts?

Well...got news for you.  EVERY Marine we had pop positive on a urinalysis was an addict.  How do I know this?  Because the Department of the Navy said they were, and we were ordered to give them a course and counsel them to seek VA treatment if they were "short" and on the way out.  The battalion medical officer automatically listed all alcohol and drug violaters as alcoholics or addicts.  Those were his orders. 

So a kid gets drunk on his birthday and gets nailed by the Officer of the Day...bingo.  He's an alcoholic.  That's a wonderful system, don't you think?

Judges give offenders a choice between jail time and treatment...guess which they take?  Each one suddenly becomes someone "in treatment," ergo an "addict" when we start looking at statistics.

Here's a quote from addiction epidemiologist Denise Kandel published in New Scientist:

"This leads to what is perhaps the most telling statistic about the addictive powers of cannabis: more than 90 per cent of people who have ever used the drug _have long since quit._ While most people continue drinking and cigarette smoking long after the first flush of youth, _people drop the weed in droves after the age of 30_." 

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/marijuana/clinic.jsp

*Like Ping said... it just opens Pandora's box if this "Ok drug" gets legal. * 

No.  It doesn't.  You have no way of knowing that it will open a "Pandora's box."  Let me counter with some fact, versus speculation.

The studies on methampetamine clearly show its extreme deleterious effects on human physiology.  _Four uses of it hooks a person_, and the withdrawal is eighteen months (minimum) of suicidal dysphoria.  I find it unlikely any state would legalize such a ridiculously addictive substance.

Not so with marijuana.

In the Netherlands when dope was legalized...more people tried dope.  That's about it. The data shows that legalizing dope may make a person more likely to try it, _but it does not make it more likely that they will continue to use it_.  One third of one percent of Dutch dope users (0.3%) ever become addicted to it.  That's about 2,000 people in the whole country.  

Further, the Netherlands has lower per capita addiction rates for other harder drugs than France, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, and Switzerland...and far fewer than the U.S.  In 1994 _0.3 percent_ (that tiny number again) of Dutch teenagers tried cocaine, whereas 1.7 percent of American kids had snorted.  

So much for "Pandora's Box."

*As a recovering addict of 15 years, I speak from experience that legalizing Marijuana .... is... not... a... good... idea! * 

And, as a recovering alcoholic who lost his father to booze, I'm all for keeping alcohol legal.  I know very well how that particular drug can ruin lives, yet I'm not for banning it even though its addiction rates are heart-breakingly high.  The issue boils down to one of personal responsibility.  

Regards,


Steve


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 30, 2004)

You guys are fighting awfully hard for the legalization of this DRUG. Alcohol is a drug (base components are ether and water) and it's dangerous. Marijuana is dangerous in it's own right. The stats showing a lower accident, crime, bad effects aren't going to change the nature of the beast. It still damages the body and affect brain cells the way that other drugs and alcohol damages and affects brain cells.  Countering it with arguments that it doesn't is just simply (IMO mind you) denial. 
Seems to me that you want to have it legalized so you can at least feel okay about using it.  That you won't be breaking the law. But that's the point of the whole drug legalization arguments, legalizing one drug will eventually lead to the legalization of other more dangerous drugs (read: faster killing/damaging). 
Having methadone clinics for Heroin addicts only enables not helps the problem user. Also treatment is not only a medical issue it IS a legal/courts issue as well. The two have to work in tandem for it to be effective. Jail is a mighty good deterent to using. Going through a medically sponsored and other theraputical treatments helps as well. 
Just because a person uses a drug doesn't automatically make them an addict or their one beer a week makes them an alcoholic. It doesn't work that way. 
I said before that there are people (and I know of some personally) that can use a drug and use it in a long term moderation. But they are woefully few and far between. Over time the potential of increased usage grows depending upon the user. 
However! The treatments are only going to work 100% effectively IF the user/abuser wants to quit.  
Marijuana is well known as a gateway drug. It's that simple. I'd avoided trying all those other ones had I not started with smoking the stuff. I'm pretty sure I would have.  

So let me ask you this... if the drug (and that's all I'll ever refer to the topic at hand wil ever be)... does become legal... presumably there's an age limit like with cigarettes and alcohol? Presumably there'll be fines akin to intoxication and driving? Basically treat it like it was alcohol. Have 7-11's start selling baggies of it? K-mart Blue light specials? Since the drug is more readily available don't you think the addiction level will rise?  No of course you don't. 
It's called... denial.  
From what I've seen and personally experienced and am experiencing now... there's nothing good about it...at all.  

Your opinion, my opinion... may they never prevent us from being friends. But allow us to have a good understanding of each other.   :asian:


----------



## psi_radar (Nov 30, 2004)

MACaver, 

You've got a lot of self-rightous indignation going on, but I don't see you presenting a lot of facts or even logical arguments. I'll also thank you not to put words in my mouth or make public assumptions about my motivations in arguing a point. That's up to me to present, if I care to. 



			
				MACaver said:
			
		

> You guys are fighting awfully hard for the legalization of this DRUG. Alcohol is a drug (base components are ether and water) and it's dangerous. Marijuana is dangerous in it's own right.



Ok, name one instance of documented marijuana overdose in America. Two college students in Colorado died of alcohol poisoning this year. 

"Drugs are bad, ok."
The good social critics over at South Park use this statement as a catchall for the political, social, and judicial castigation of drugs in America. We're all just supposed to have some sort of blanket hatred of all things mind-altering. Except liquor and cigarrettes. They're ok. Do you see the hypocrisy there?



> The stats showing a lower accident, crime, bad effects aren't going to change the nature of the beast. It still damages the body and affect brain cells the way that other drugs and alcohol damages and affects brain cells.  Countering it with arguments that it doesn't is just simply (IMO mind you) denial.



Yeah, so does living, holding your breath, living in a smoggy area, Headshots you take in sparring, etc. How adults want to treat their bodies is up to them. The point still is, how can cigarrettes and liquor, which are much more deleterious than pot, be legal when it is not?



> Seems to me that you want to have it legalized so you can at least feel okay about using it.  That you won't be breaking the law. But that's the point of the whole drug legalization arguments, legalizing one drug will eventually lead to the legalization of other more dangerous drugs (read: faster killing/damaging).



There you go with the assumptions. Remember what happens when you assume? I am not a current user-- 

_"No no no, I don't smoke it no more
I'm tired of waking up on the floor

No thank you please it only makes me sneeze
Then it makes it hard to find the door."_--

though I know a lot of people who are. Engineers, programmers, actuaries, lawyers, M.D.s, professors, bankers, and other professionals among them. They're not exactly drains on society. I support legalization because I believe it's the right thing to do, for society and for individual freedom. I support legalization because I think it's ridiculous to have people thrown in jail for possessing or selling a substance I view as less harmful than alcohol or cigarrettes.



> Having methadone clinics for Heroin addicts only enables not helps the problem user. Also treatment is not only a medical issue it IS a legal/courts issue as well. The two have to work in tandem for it to be effective. Jail is a mighty good deterent to using. Going through a medically sponsored and other theraputical treatments helps as well.



Being an addict isn't necessarily a societal problem. Addiction is a personal problem, which is up to the person to resolve. Society, in its compassion, could provide treatment centers to help when addicts are ready to stop living like junkies. When an addict turns to crime, society is impelled to act. And in that case, the crimes should be punished as deserved.  



> Marijuana is well known as a gateway drug. It's that simple. I'd avoided trying all those other ones had I not started with smoking the stuff. I'm pretty sure I would have.



Plenty of people only try a little pot and never try the hard stuff, which I'll name as meth, cocaine, heroin, LSD, psylocybin (sp?), and ecstacy. One of the reasons some people do go on to harder drugs is that they have psychologically stepped past the bounds of criminality and figure, hey, why not? Another reason is that they now have a link to the black market which they can exploit as deemed necessary.

Remember also, smuggling and illicit status tend to modify drugs to their most powerful and least bulky form--easier to hide, more bang for the buck. 

Which is one of the reasons dope growers and dealers are caught more frequently than others (besides not being as wealthy to pay bribes and such). Their product is bulky and smelly. 

In the Andes, the Indians chew legal coca leaves marinated in lime juice to give them an extra boost of energy in their high-altitude environment. Yet they rarely use cocaine. I wonder why that is...



> So let me ask you this... if the drug (and that's all I'll ever refer to the topic at hand wil ever be)... does become legal... presumably there's an age limit like with cigarettes and alcohol? Presumably there'll be fines akin to intoxication and driving? Basically treat it like it was alcohol.


Yes.


> Have 7-11's start selling baggies of it?


Actually it'll probably be little filtered cigarrettes made by Philip Morris and our other friends in the tobacco industry. It's said they already have prototypes and brands created in the event of legalization. 



> K-mart Blue light specials? Since the drug is more readily available don't you think the addiction level will rise?  No of course you don't.
> It's called... denial.


It's called logic and research. Look into the European and Canadian experiments in the decriminalization of soft drugs. There's a brief spike, then levels drop. 



> From what I've seen and personally experienced and am experiencing now... there's nothing good about it...at all.
> 
> Your opinion, my opinion... may they never prevent us from being friends. But allow us to have a good understanding of each other.   :asian:



I think you're reading a little too much of your personal experience into this. You're blaming the gun for pulling the trigger--or in this case, the bong for pulling the stem. 

Take it easy,
 :asian:


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 30, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Plenty of people only try a little pot and never try the hard stuff, which I'll name as meth, cocaine, heroin, LSD, psylocybin (sp?), and ecstacy. One of the reasons some people do go on to harder drugs is that they have psychologically stepped past the bounds of criminality and figure, hey, why not? Another reason is that they now have a link to the black market which they can exploit as deemed necessary.
> :asian:


Very good point here... The only reason I personally got into the harder stuff was because after smoking weed, and being paranoid, they offered my a free toke of crack, or a line of coke, or lets drop some acid, etc.  Me not wanting to feel like a chump cause they were doing it, did it with them.  Now I realize I was mentally weak back then but if I could had bought weed legally, I wouldn't have had access to all that other crap.  I wouldn't had felt if I didn't do it I would lose my contact, and not be able to get a bag here and there, due to appearing like I'm a chump.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Xequat (Nov 30, 2004)

I think it should be legal to be consistent with what is currently allowed. I don't smoke it now, and I won't start if it becomes legal. But if it becomes legally accepted, then there might be ways to make it filtered to take out some of the tar and unhealthy stuff. I feel that it's simply less dangerous than alcohol, but I certainly don't feel it's healthy. It should be up to us to determine what we eat, drink, and smoke, not the government. I don't want the democratic population to tell me what I can do with myself. But I won't argue that it's healthy. I've heard that a lot of what is sold in the US is grown on mercury-rich soil (maybe someone can back me up on this, I think I heard it on the radio and I'm at work, so I'm not going to research marijuana here to find a link to prove it). There is a lot of tar and bad stuff that enters the body when you smoke a joint. I don't support it for medical reasons; I support it for the reasons that it's not as bad as what's currently out there (so let's get consistent) and that we should be able to decide what we do with ourselves.


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 30, 2004)

Just because something is not as bad as what is currently allowed doesn't mean it should therefore become legal.


----------



## Mathusula2 (Nov 30, 2004)

psy_radar:
    Maybe one should cut Mac a bit of slack -- this drug has done some pretty awful things to him and he doesn't want to see anyone else go through it, too.  I give him a lot of credit and respect for being so forthright about his experiences.

If there were a way to filter out tar and other harmful substances, they would have forced the tobacco industry to do it by now, IMO.

Lastly, if this country was crazy enough to make it legal, there should be smoking only in the privacy of their own home... as stated before second-hand marijuana smoke is not only detrimental to the surrounding folk's health, but can be thick enough to effect their mental status, as well.  It's kinda like if you were to get drunk by standing too close to a drunkard.  Oh yeah, and it has been studied... marijuana does effect motor coordination as much as or more than alcohol, so driving while high produces the same effects as driving drunk.  Isn't there enough DWI going on without having to worry about DWH (driving while high)???

Oh yeah, and rock on, Ping!!  That's exactly right!!  Just b/c it's not as bad (which I would argue against) doesn't mean it should be legal.  Using that arguement is easily countered with "if little Johnny were to jump off a bridge... would you too?"  I really don't care what's available to smoke or drink legally right now... and I don't care what the Netherlands are doing... the fact is that it is not acceptable to be in such an altered state (for both what it can do to you, but moreso what the consequences are for those around you) -- drunkeness is frowned upon but most can drink a few without getting drunk, whereas NO ONE can smoke a joint without getting high.  

Marijuana is like the worst of nicotine and alcohol... psychological dependence with an altered mental state.


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Nov 30, 2004)

*Xequat: "...there might be ways to make it filtered to take out some of the tar and unhealthy stuff."*

Yeah, it's called a bong. 

*"I've heard that a lot of what is sold in the US is grown on mercury-rich soil ..."*

I've never heard of that, and it sounds like conspiracy-theory scare tactics to me. Why would someone choose to grow anything on mercury-rich soil? If they didn't choose, and it's accidental, then that means all plants/crops have the same probability of being grown on mercury-rich soil.

Actually, there would be a reason to grow certain plants in soil with high toxic metals content - it's called phytoremediation, and uses plants ability to draw substances out of soil and into its body to clean up contaminated areas.

In my environmental engineering classes, we learn that poplar trees are commonly used for this.

The only places where one would find mercury-rich soils would be near mining operations, metal smelting facilities, and coal-burning power plants.

After a little research, it turns out that this in fact has happened:

http://www.medicalmarihuana.ca/toxic.html

What I gathered from the article is that the cannabis was grown near an abandoned mine that has been contaminated with heavy metals - the cannabis was grown by the Canadian government for use by legal users for medicinal reasons. 

"CSA believes that Health Canada could have saved millions of dollars and years of unnecessary work and suffering had they shown the common sense to listen to the concerns of experienced users, cultivators and distributors, who have expressed worries over possible heavy metal contamination and have stressed the importance of organic cultivation since it was first announced that this product would be grown in an abandoned Copper and Zinc mine.
"Canada's compassion clubs and societies have the experience and expertise that is so obviously missing from the Office of Cannabis Medical Access", says Lucas, "they are currently the only safe source of cannabis for Canadians suffering from critical or chronic conditions, and they are contributing more research than any other organization, including Health Canada; all at no cost to the taxpayer.

"Canadians for Safe Access advises Health Canada to cease the distribution of Prairie Plant Systems' cannabis to legal users and researchers until the extent and results of their safety testing is revealed, and accommodations are made for an independent analysis of this product."


Now, whether or not we are to believe "...that a lot of what is sold in the US is grown on mercury-rich soil..." will depend on how many users in the U.S. are getting their supply from the Canadian government.




*MACaver: "You guys are fighting awfully hard for the legalization of this DRUG."*

Putting the word "drug" in all capital letters does nothing but reinforce the connotation that "drugs are bad, mmkuay."

Aspirin is a drug; dandruff shampoo is a drug; antihystimines are drugs. They are all dangerous too - I guess we have to make them all illegal.

*"Alcohol is a drug (base components are ether and water) and it's dangerous."*

Actually, it's ethanol, not ether, but you're right it is dangerous, yet legal.


*"Marijuana is dangerous in it's own right. The stats showing a lower accident, crime, bad effects aren't going to change the nature of the beast."*

No, but it does show that the beast is pretty warm and cuddly, and not so much of a demon.

*"It still damages the body and affect brain cells the way that other drugs and alcohol damages and affects brain cells."*

Bad lapse of logic here. It would reasonably follow that different drugs have different effects on the body and mind, and not that everything effects everyone in the same way. Unless you just meant to say that it does have an effect and not necessarily the same effect as other drugs.

*"Countering it with arguments that it doesn't is just simply (IMO mind you) denial."*

Yes, that would be silly. However, using the argument that it does to the same degree as other drugs is at the opposite end of the spectrum - exaggeration.

*"But that's the point of the whole drug legalization arguments, legalizing one drug will eventually lead to the legalization of other more dangerous drugs (read: faster killing/damaging). "*

There are two different arguments. One is for the legalization of marijuana/hemp/cannabis - either for personal recreational use, industrial use, or medical use. The other argument is for the legalization (or at least decriminalization) of all drugs. They are similar, but saying that the point of marijuana legalization is to lead to legalization of more dangerous drugs is ridiculous.

The similarities lie in that prohibition of marijuana and certain other drugs is a limit to personal freedom, is based more on politics than health concerns, and doesn't really do any good to stop the use of such things. The failure of the War on Drugs, and all the obvious hypocricy of having some drugs (alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, etc.) be legal while others are not just shows that prohibition is a waste of effort.

*"Your opinion, my opinion... may they never prevent us from being friends. But allow us to have a good understanding of each other."*

Well, said. Now if people could set aside their opinions, gather the facts and weigh the pros and cons, then maybe we could come to a sensible decision. Maybe that decision will be to keep it illegal. That won't stop people from using it. It will not change the fact that it is safer to use than other drugs (many of which are legal). It will help continue the failed War on Drugs. It will continue to overcrowd prisons with non-violent offenders. It will hinder research into medicinal uses. It will continue to put a limit on personal freedom. It will continue to limit industrial uses of the plant. And It won't change the fact that hemp is probably America's #1 cash crop, that unfortunately is only profitting law-breakers.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 30, 2004)

First, for the record, I want to state that I respect MACaver for having gone through rehab successfully and getting the "monkey off his back" to borrow a phrase from playwright John Monks (a morphine addict who served with my father in WWII).  I don't want to minimize your achievement here.

*Seems to me that you want to have it legalized so you can at least feel okay about using it.  That you won't be breaking the law. * 

I don't use it.  My present addiction is to caffeine via coffee, which I drink daily.  Maybe three cups, four tops.  I smoke cigars perhaps twice a year.  I quit drinking on November 23, 1987...almost thirteen months following my Dad's death from alcoholism.  I took the pledge at the Marine Corps Ball in San Bruno, California.  My last drink was a Budweiser.  I hate Bud, so it was probably a good way to end it.

I counsel the children in my school to avoid drugs, alcohol, and overeating.  I'm 47 and haven't used marijuana in about twenty years.  I don't have plans to use it again.

I have three friends whose children are currently struggling with marijuana addiction.  Two of those three parents I know for sure smoked marijuana in the seventies and stopped using it before their thirties.  The third parent I'm not sure about.  I'm aware that cannabis triggers schizophrenia in those genetically pre-disposed to it. One of those was my best friend in high school.  My alcoholic sister's niece is a drug addict who relapsed upon he death of her husband from Lou Gehrig's disease.  She met him in rehab.  

I'm not unaware of pot's dangers.

But the majority of people who use it, as I've presented, are able to walk away from it.  The articles I've presented indicate that.  Every  member of my nuclear family has tried it, including both my parents (my father-born in 1916-a former Republican mayor of South Bend Indiana in the fifties, of all people).  None used it regularly.  All walked away from it to find their drug of choice, which was usually alcohol.

*Jail is a mighty good deterent to using. * 

Obviously not.  Roughly one third of all Americans have used it.  A marijuana user is arrested once about every 54 seconds.  About a half a million people a year are busted for it.

*Just because a person uses a drug doesn't automatically make them an addict or their one beer a week makes them an alcoholic. It doesn't work that way. * 

No kidding.  You didn't get my sense of frustration with the Chief of Naval Operations?  So much for irony.  Most of those kids were not addicts.  I knew that then, as did the battalion surgeon.  They were "addicts" by an Admiral's decree.

*I said before that there are people (and I know of some personally) that can use a drug and use it in a long term moderation. But they are woefully few and far between. Over time the potential of increased usage grows depending upon the user. * 

Check the stats I've posted.  

For each drug it is different.  Methampetamine and Crack are incredibly addictive.  One in ten people in our country struggle with alcohol.  As I've said, with dope most people don't use it long term or chronically...with exceptions, obviously.  The majority walk away from it.  Look at the Netherlands studies and the article from the addictions epidemiologist.  

As you point out, biological diversity will often affect how an individual will respond to a drug.  It is a bit of a crap shoot.  If you're Native American or Irish, there is a chance you have less ability to produce alcohol dehydrogenase in your liver.  Addiction among those populations can be severe.  The stereotypes are, sadly, rooted in truth...but it isn't an issue of morality as it was in the 19th century where Indians and the Irish were portrayed as intellectually bankrupt and corrupt.  People with genetic schizophrenic tendencies can find their disease triggered early (case in point, Mark Vonnegut, son of the famous author Kurt).

But for most of us...it isn't a problem when it comes to marijuana.

*However! The treatments are only going to work 100% effectively IF the user/abuser wants to quit.  * 

I wouldn't be too quick to say that.  But that's another topic.  Let me tell you about my niece sometime.

*Marijuana is well known as a gateway drug. It's that simple. * 

No.  It is not that simple.  Again, check the review of the studies from the Netherlands I posted earlier.  There was an increase in people who tried the drug subsequent to its legalization, but no increase in the number of addicts.  In spite of it being legal and more people trying it, the number of hard drug users in the Netherlands is one of the lowest in Europe.

*So let me ask you this... if the drug (and that's all I'll ever refer to the topic at hand wil ever be)... does become legal... presumably there's an age limit like with cigarettes and alcohol? Presumably there'll be fines akin to intoxication and driving? Basically treat it like it was alcohol. Have 7-11's start selling baggies of it? K-mart Blue light specials? Since the drug is more readily available don't you think the addiction level will rise?  No of course you don't. * 

You didn't read my post, or the links, did you?

*It's called... denial.  * 

Its called thinking rationally, not emotionally.  I have no issues with marijuana.  Please don't use 12 Step jargon on me.  I'm clean and have been for years.

*
From what I've seen and personally experienced and am experiencing now... there's nothing good about it...at all.  * 

Of course not.  You're a recovering marijuana addict.  Had you been one of the majority that walked away from it, you might feel very differently.  You have the great misfortune of being one of those _few_ people who is neurologically wired in such a way that dope--for you--is a very bad thing.  For most, it isn't.

Let me put this another way:  Criminalizing it makes it an issue of morality, and not one of addiction.  Putting users of pot in prison does nothing to rehabilitate them.  We're punishing users, some of whom are addicts, but most are not.  We're punishing them for--what?  By your definition-- hurting themselves?  Let's layer it on, punishment upon self abuse.  We're taking a classic tragedy and turning it into a morality play.

Here in Indiana a 36 year old man, Mark Young, introduced two people who wanted to sell marijuana to three men who wanted to buy it.  He merely introduced them.  He didn't broker the deal, he had no drugs in his possession.  He had no guns or any physical evidence presented against him. He was merely a go-between who never saw the marijuana in question.

For this Young was arrested and was convicted solely on the testimony of co-conspiraters who had agreed to testify for the government.  Note Young had never been charged with a violent crime in his life.

In Indiana an armed robber serves typically six years for his crime.  A rapist will serve about eight years.  A convicted murderer 25 years.  On February 8, 1992 Judge Sarah Evans Barker sentenced Mark Young to life imprisonment without parole.  


This is insane.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 30, 2004)

Steve

That IS insane.  And that is one of the saddest aspects of marijuana use and attitudes in this country - treating it like a terrifying spector, rather than the frequently-used recreational and medicinal drug that it is.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 30, 2004)

And yet another:  Will Foster, sentenced to 93 years in prison for growing medical marijuana in his basement.  Amount?  Ten plants.  The disease?  Rheumatoid arthritis.  

Was he breaking the law?  Sure.  Was he dealing?  No.  It was all for private consumption.  The cops raided the home on a fraudulent tip that he was selling meth.  He wasn't.  His five year old daughter watched as the cops tore her stuffed bear apart looking for drugs.

93 years.

One of my students came up to me some years ago and confided to me she'd been raped at knife point five years earlier.  I felt honored by her confidence in me and asked her why she felt the need to divulge such personal information.

"I'm a little freaked out.  He's getting out of prison today."

Five years.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 30, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> And yet another: Will Foster, sentenced to 93 years in prison for growing medical marijuana in his basement. Amount? Ten plants. The disease? Rheumatoid arthritis.
> 
> Was he breaking the law? Sure. Was he dealing? No. It was all for private consumption. The cops raided the home on a fraudulent tip that he was selling meth. He wasn't. His five year old daughter watched as the cops tore her stuffed bear apart looking for drugs.
> 
> ...


It's injustices like that that make me feel violent and enraged with the way our laws are set up now.

Violent crime against another person means less than growing a couple of pot plants for your own use when you're in constant pain?

I hate people sometimes.  Just in general. IT MAKES NO SENSE.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 30, 2004)

People here should visit the NORML site.  

http://www.norml.org/

It isn't what you think...a bunch of rants by stoners.  Its actually a well designed site with a wealth of information.  I just found it tonight while researching for this thread.

And of course, for those of you that liked "Fast Food Nation," Eric Schlosser's newest book is "Reefer Madness."  The first essay concerns the history of marijuana in the U.S. and the current legal issues.  The book itself deals with the blackmarket economy in the U.S.  It is classic Schlosser.  Excellent writing with first rate research.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 1, 2004)

Hopefully this shows that I can lighten up on the subject...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 1, 2004)

Marijuana airlines?  Thier motto:  "We fly higher than the others."  They don't serve inflight meals...only snacks.  Lots of snacks.  No inflight movie.  Just a picture of a black velvet Jimmie Hendrix poster lit with a black light.

Back to the issue.

----------
*
A quote from Lynn Zimmer, co-author of "Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts."*

_"Levels of cannabis use in the Netherlands, with full scale decriminalization, are about the same as in the rest of Europe. In the U.S., rates are the same across most states, regardless of penalites. So, although decriminalization might increase use some, I don't think too much."_

*This refutes the notion that going to jail is a deterrent.

A transcript of a forum discussion with her is here:*

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/marijuana/chat.jsp
*
Of 15 million illicit drug users in the United States, 12 million are cannabis users.  About a half a million or more of them are arrested every year. If cannabis were legalized, resources could be diverted to cracking down on harder drugs like crack, methapmetamine, heroin, or...and here is an interesting thought...terrorism.*

*The U.S. federal government spent $19.179 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second.  In 2000, 646,042 people were arrested for possession of cannabis alone.*

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

*Only one out of eighty marijuana users ever try heroin.  One out of nine try cocaine.  There goes that "gateway" theory again...right out the window.*

http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion7.htm

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rynocerous (Dec 6, 2004)

Well I'm finally back from D.C.  I must say HHJH, very good posts, there isn't much you can add to this.  Well written.


Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## TonyM. (Dec 6, 2004)

This is a huge non issue for me. It seems like every time our country gets really messed up democracy wise, someone has to pull the public focus away from the real problems with such a mind boggling who cares issue such as the legalization of cannibus. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 6, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> Well I'm finally back from D.C.  I must say HHJH, very good posts, there isn't much you can add to this.  Well written.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> ...




Thanks.  It was fun researching that.  I learned a lot.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 14, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> Well I'm finally back from D.C.  I must say HHJH, very good posts, there isn't much you can add to this.  Well written.
> Cheers,
> Ryan


Sure there is... try this link... http://www.health.org/features/interact/calc/
It's private enough to get your own answers but basically what the quiz does is calculate how much you spend on drugs right now... including cigarettes and alcohol and shows you the total at the end of the year. 
Something to think about I guess. 


 :asian:


----------



## Rynocerous (Dec 14, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Sure there is... try this link... http://www.health.org/features/interact/calc/
> It's private enough to get your own answers but basically what the quiz does is calculate how much you spend on drugs right now... including cigarettes and alcohol and shows you the total at the end of the year.
> Something to think about I guess.
> 
> ...


Really cool link, really enjoyed it but not much of a suprise. Booze was killing my pocket book, but I have recently decided to quit, now that I'm going back to school.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## shane23ss (Dec 14, 2004)

Wow, this is a touchy subject for a lot of people. As some of you know, and all of you if you read my profile, I am a Drug Task Force Agent. The legalization of Marihuana (I know I spelled it with an "h", that is how we write reports here, just habit), has been talked about more than you can imagine around my office. My personal belief is that it will be legalized in the near future. Already the consequences for manufacture, possession, introduction, and distribution is less in most places than other drugs. Although Marihuana is a Schedule I drug (Schedule I being worse than Schedule 5) on the CSA (Controlled Substance Act), it is looked at as being less harmful than other drugs such as cocaine, ex, meth, etc. The "ranking" of Marihuana on the CSA has to do with how drugs are "ranked". They are scheduled according to 1) medical use, 2) chance for abuse, 3) history of use. Marihuana has such a high history of use, it bumps it up to Schedule I. There are over 400 chemicals in Marihuana. Of all these chemicals, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the only "active" chemical. This is the chemical that causes the "high" effect. THC reacts differently depending on the person using it (body mass, history of use, tolerance, etc) and can even react differently from use to use in the same person. This "unknown" is probably the biggest factor keeping Marihuana from being legalized. It is not money, because the government could make a lot more money taxing marihuana if it were legal than they do just from court costs now. I think when the right people pich a good enough explanation of how Marihuana affects the body, and it sounds "not so bad", then the powers that be probably wont hesitate to make some more money. That's just my opinion.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Dec 14, 2004)

Makes me absent minded for days after use. Might as well keep it illegal...I have no regular use for it. (yes, the world does revolve around I/ME/MINE, thank you.)

D.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 15, 2004)

shane23ss said:
			
		

> Wow, this is a touchy subject for a lot of people. As some of you know, and all of you if you read my profile, I am a Drug Task Force Agent. The legalization of Marihuana (I know I spelled it with an "h", that is how we write reports here, just habit), has been talked about more than you can imagine around my office. My personal belief is that it will be legalized in the near future. Already the consequences for manufacture, possession, introduction, and distribution is less in most places than other drugs. Although Marihuana is a Schedule I drug (Schedule I being worse than Schedule 5) on the CSA (Controlled Substance Act), it is looked at as being less harmful than other drugs such as cocaine, ex, meth, etc. The "ranking" of Marihuana on the CSA has to do with how drugs are "ranked". They are scheduled according to 1) medical use, 2) chance for abuse, 3) history of use. Marihuana has such a high history of use, it bumps it up to Schedule I. There are over 400 chemicals in Marihuana. Of all these chemicals, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the only "active" chemical. This is the chemical that causes the "high" effect. THC reacts differently depending on the person using it (body mass, history of use, tolerance, etc) and can even react differently from use to use in the same person. This "unknown" is probably the biggest factor keeping Marihuana from being legalized. It is not money, because the government could make a lot more money taxing marihuana if it were legal than they do just from court costs now. I think when the right people pich a good enough explanation of how Marihuana affects the body, and it sounds "not so bad", then the powers that be probably wont hesitate to make some more money. That's just my opinion.



All due respect I had to laugh when you ID'd yourself as a DTFA. I had this mental image of cockroaches scattering when the light comes on in this thread... (no, I'm not comparing the pro-legalization guys to a bunch of cockroaches, geez fellas :lol: ). 
The powers that be will probably have to change hands for another generation or two before it happens. I cannot imagine the Bush Administration and the current House/Senate/Congress members actually passing the legalization bill.  Money does talk but not loud enough in this case. But I agree, pretty soon. I'm guessing by the time present day middle-schoolers are in college or at voting age.


----------



## shane23ss (Dec 15, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> All due respect I had to laugh when you ID'd yourself as a DTFA. I had this mental image of cockroaches scattering when the light comes on in this thread... (no, I'm not comparing the pro-legalization guys to a bunch of cockroaches, geez fellas :lol: ).
> The powers that be will probably have to change hands for another generation or two before it happens. I cannot imagine the Bush Administration and the current House/Senate/Congress members actually passing the legalization bill. Money does talk but not loud enough in this case. But I agree, pretty soon. I'm guessing by the time present day middle-schoolers are in college or at voting age.


Yeah, I take a lot of ribbing from time to time. I don't mind.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 15, 2005)

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/564/


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Feb 16, 2005)

I was gonna say something profound, but I forget what it was. *bong water bubbling in background*


----------



## Darksoul (Feb 16, 2005)

-I know people who smoke pot responsibly, if you can call it that. They keep it to themselves, don't smoke out in the open, all on the down low. Then there are the people who will bust it out, regardless of where they are. The first group is one I can deal with. The latter group? I can't stand them. For example, I go to a goth club here in Rochester. A couple of weeks ago, I walked down to the bathrooms. I could smell the smoke even before I took two steps down. Turning the corner, I came upon the ladies room, door open, about 10 people standing in there, in a cloud of smoke. One look of disgust, into the men's room. Ahh, fresh air, relatively speaking. Finish my business, and the guy in the stall next to me light's up. WTF! Upstairs I go, find security and send him down. They all scattered like roaches.

-My point is that the club is like a second home to me. Been going for almost 7 years, and have many friends there. I don't smoke, drink, whatever, unless you count the occasional cup of coffee, tea, or energy drink. I don't have a problem with responsible users. Its not the drug that really matters, but the people. And some of them really dont' know when to stop. What bothers me about the club is some undercover cop walking in, seeing this crap going down in the bathroom, and shutting the club down. Vertex (name of venue) is the only decent goth club in western NY. Not to many places play this type of music. And these smokers know there is an outside world. If they want to smoke, fine, just do it off the property, where they'll get busted, and the club won't. Its placing other people in danger that riles me. And some people are affected by weed in different ways than the norm, and people need to be careful around them.

-I just don't think this nation is mature or responsible enough to handle the legalization of pot. I certainly agree about the whole prison, drug law b.s. That crap needs to be repealed. Murder someone? Here's a few years in prison. Get caught with weed? Here's 15 years. ??? Somebody is making money by having all these prisoners. Scare people into thinking crime is out of control, something must be done, gov't says give us more money, ie raise taxes, we'll build more prisoners and put those violent pot smokers away. Whatever. I think the gov't is giving control of some prisons over to private contractors. Capitalism...


A---)


----------



## Lisa (Feb 16, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.compfused.com/directlink/564/


 LOL!  Sponge Bob Hemp Pants!  No wonder people are outraged at the video going out to schools!


----------



## Ray (Feb 16, 2005)

It isn't good for me, so I don't use it.  Make it legal and it still isn't good for me.  Are there things worse than it that are legal?  Yes...but I don't use those either.  

If it comes to a vote, I vote no.  Will others claim that I am unfairly preventing them from enjoying a semi-harmless high?  They may, but that's okay.


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Feb 18, 2005)

I have never, will never use drugs. I dont even like the pain meds prescribed after dental surgery. That being said, ALL DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGAL. If I want to sniff crazy glue out of my gym socks, then thats my problem. The fact that it effects those around me would further prove that I'm a horrible person. The acid junky who robs me for drug money is no different than the guy who kills me while drunk driving. 

Its a basic law of ECONOMICS: Just because you make something illegal, does not mean it goes away, it just raises the price.
I would have thought Prohibition proved that. If there is Demand, then there will be Supply. Just think of it: No drug cartels, no billions of tax dollars spent to fight drug cartels. 

Of course we would still ahve to contend with the guy who turns his brain to pudding in the whirlpool. I had friend of mine find someone like that. 1 week later. The cops called him "soup".:rofl:


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 18, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> <snip>
> Of course we would still ahve to contend with the guy who turns his brain to pudding in the whirlpool. I had friend of mine find someone like that. 1 week later. The cops called him "soup".:rofl:



Ah, that's not very funny. Junkies, as pitiful are they are, are just the core result of people brought down to specific level of depravity that is both genetic and a condition of the drug. "Never trust a junkie." That's true. However, having done lots of drugs in the past, don't worry about an "acid junky" doing anything more than dominating time in front of your big screen tv or candle collection.


----------



## Ray (Feb 18, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> I have never, will never use drugs. I dont even like the pain meds prescribed after dental surgery. That being said, ALL DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGAL. If I want to sniff crazy glue out of my gym socks, then thats my problem. ....
> 
> Of course we would still ahve to contend with the guy who turns his brain to pudding in the whirlpool. I had friend of mine find someone like that. 1 week later. The cops called him "soup".:rofl:


Well then, if you're willing to personally support all of those who become soup without using dollars from other Americans....

Don't you think it's worth it to try to discourage just one person from becoming soup...


----------



## Schtankybampo (Feb 18, 2005)

Banning things just makes it more lucrative for those who have them to sell them. That's referred to as: Economics. 

Spend some time in Amsterdam. 

Nancy Regans "War on Drugs" did more to profit the drug lords than anything has since. Legalize EVERYTHING, regulate it, tax it. Register the junkies. I'm sorry, but it was their choice to light up/shoot up/pop pills in the first place. 

I have never used. I've never even smoked MJ. I don't like tylenol, fer gossakes. But you can't legislate morality, and you can't regulate behaviour. If people wanna go through life with thier head stuffed full of rags, I'm sorry, it's thier choice. Do me a favor, though, don't smoke it RIGHT in front of the door.

Honestly, I'd rather smell marijuana smoke than stinky marlboros anyway.


----------



## Ray (Feb 18, 2005)

Schtankybampo said:
			
		

> ...But you can't legislate morality, and you can't regulate behaviour....


You may be right on your stance on the legalization of dope, but this particular arguement isn't legit.  Penalties for murder, for example, do not stop people from murdering but that doesn't mean it should be legalized.


----------



## Schtankybampo (Feb 18, 2005)

I agree, it shouldn't be legalized. But those penalties don't stop someone who is determined to murder another human being. Nor do the penalties stop someone who is determined to take drugs. I will amend my statement; You can't legislate morality or regulate behaviour for EVERYONE.

If there were no penalties, if there were no consequence, would you kill someone? Would you take drugs? Is it the penalties that are stopping you? Or something deeper within yourself?


M


----------



## Ray (Feb 18, 2005)

Schtankybampo said:
			
		

> I agree, it shouldn't be legalized. But those penalties don't stop someone who is determined to murder another human being. Nor do the penalties stop someone who is determined to take drugs. I will amend my statement; You can't legislate morality or regulate behaviour for EVERYONE.
> 
> If there were no penalties, if there were no consequence, would you kill someone? Would you take drugs? Is it the penalties that are stopping you? Or something deeper within yourself?


Those are awesome questions. 

Let me ask specifically about:"If there were no penalties, if there were no consequences" and  Is it the penalties that are stopping you?"

Do you mean legal penalties and legal consequences or are their also natural consequences to our actions?  If I decide not to smoke dope because it's illegal, then is that a bad reason?  If I decide not to smoke dope because it's bad for me, then is that a bad reason?  If I decide not to smoke dope, based on religious teachings, is that a bad reason?

If I can't regulate/legislate behavior/morality for EVERYONE does that mean I should just tolerate the state of my home, neighborhood or country rather than try to improve it?  If my 16-year old wants to shoot heroin, should I just stand idley by?  If he wants to smoke dope in his bedroom?  If my neighbor wants to run a crack-house next door?


----------



## Schtankybampo (Feb 18, 2005)

If your 16 year old wants to do heroin, no, you shouldn't stand idly by. You should do everything you can do as a parent to raise your child to think about these things for themselves, which I am sure you do. (Assuming it's not a hypothetical 16-year-old) Should we tolerate these things? No, but this thread is about legalization. When crack is available at the pharmacy, will that crackhouse still exist? When the funds brought in from legal drugs can pay for the policing of the illegal sources? If they are regulated, registered, and sold, I think this will be less of a problem. I don't say it won't be a problem at all...but the illegal nature of drugs in general adds to the mystique, the "taboo" of it. Again, I cite Amsterdam. Maybe I wasn't touring the gritty reality of it, but I do keep my eyes open. There were places that people went, things were clean, and if you wanted a joint, you strolled up to the bar and ordered one. With a beer chaser. How much of the drug problem in America would dissappear with legalization? 

Go ahead, call me heartless, but if someone uses the legalization of drugs to OD, well...were they adding so much to humanity by thier presence? If someone wants to be a junkie, they will. All we can do for our kids is actually *raise* them, and do the best we can to help them see that this is not a happy road. 

M


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 18, 2005)

Ray in bold:

*Penalties for murder, for example, do not stop people from murdering but that doesn't mean it should be legalized.*


Substitute "drinking" for "murder" and you quickly get a sense of the simplistic failure of that argument.  Marijuana use and murder penalties are two separate issues, each with different social impacts.  

Murder, for instance, does not relieve chronic pain.  Murder is a crime against the person.  Smoking dope at best harms the user and perhaps someone exposed to second-hand smoke or the toxins of the marijuana.  I suspect a fetus would be harmed just as it is with tobacco and alcohol.

The issue of legalization is one of cost/benefit.  There is no benefit to legalizing murder, and clearly harm.  Legalization/decriminalization of marijuana has not been shown to cause harm. 

In the Netherlands the GDP grew 2.4% per year from 1990-1997.  That's an average.  In 1998 it grew 4% and the country had one of the best economies in the world according to macroeconomic indicators.  I consider that an amazing output for a bunch of stoners, don't you?

Here's a fact sheet on usage rates among the Dutch and other countries:

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm

Their overdose rates are the lowest in Europe. Our usage rate is double theirs.  

So...we dump a bunch of money into the drug war, much of it specifically targeting marijuana.  We arrest dealers. We arrest users.  We use D.A.R.E.   Now we have more people using it than a country in which it's legal. 

This echoes the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment.  When Prohibition went into effect on Jan. 16 of 1919 it damaged wine businesses, brewers, distillieries.  Restaurants around the country closed down because of a loss of liquor sales.  Delmonico's, one of the most famous restaurants in U.S. history, closed its doors just short of its 100th birthday.  

In very little time the nation's drinking rates per capita went through the roof.  Demonize something, and you make it fun.  Bathtub gin and speakeasies abounded.  Organized crime got into the game and small time thugs like Al Capone suddenly became wealthy and famous.  The Italian and Irish mobs made huge fortunes.

That drug war didn't work either, in spite of Eliot Ness and his _Untouchables_.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

Sweden has been doing a good job and drugs are illegal there.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/sweden/

And the Dutch model isnt exactly "anything goes"...

http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/thenetherlan/


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

I have yet to see a marijuana "user" do time out of my court. Heck most controlled substance "users" dont get time for simple possession. The time (in my court at least) comes from the crimes the subjects commit while they had dope in their possession.

Most users get channeled into "drug court" in my jurisdiction. They go through a series of counseling sessions, tests, sometimes residential treatment, and "sanctions" (week long jail stints) when they test "hot" while in the program. In exchange their charges get reduced to ACD's or other lesser charges and/or probation.

Even then its amazing how many people just cant stop smoking pot for the time it takes to complete the program. Many come in knowing they are going to test hot and go to jail for a week.


----------



## Schtankybampo (Feb 18, 2005)

Mmm, and here is why I usually avoid serious topics...I'm about to toss a question out there that will completely contradict my stance...

Every single time we step onto the mat with eachother, we are literally placing our trust and our lives into eachothers' hands. The things we do and practice in our training are dangerous. If drugs, even marijuana were legalized (and I believe they will be soon, at least here in Cali) how are we all going to feel realizing that the person we're about to spar/practice with could be using? 

I'm allowed to waffle, just by virtue of the fact that I woke up breathing this morning.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

Schtankybampo said:
			
		

> Mmm, and here is why I usually avoid serious topics...I'm about to toss a question out there that will completely contradict my stance...
> 
> Every single time we step onto the mat with eachother, we are literally placing our trust and our lives into eachothers' hands. The things we do and practice in our training are dangerous. If drugs, even marijuana were legalized (and I believe they will be soon, at least here in Cali) how are we all going to feel realizing that the person we're about to spar/practice with could be using?
> 
> I'm allowed to waffle, just by virtue of the fact that I woke up breathing this morning.


For all you know some may already be.......


----------



## Ceicei (Feb 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Even then its amazing how many people just cant stop smoking pot for the time it takes to complete the program. Many come in knowing they are going to test hot and go to jail for a week.


 So addiction comes into play here if they cannot stop for even a short time.  Is that a good thing?

 - Ceicei


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

Point being that pot is (sometimes) argued as non-addictive.


----------



## Ray (Feb 18, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Ray in bold:
> 
> *Penalties for murder, for example, do not stop people from murdering but that doesn't mean it should be legalized.*
> 
> Substitute "drinking" for "murder" and you quickly get a sense of the simplistic failure of that argument. Marijuana use and murder penalties are two separate issues, each with different social impacts.


No, there is no failure in my simplistic arguement.  The logic used to justify legalized dope have been used to aruge the legalization of just about anything.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Murder, for instance, does not relieve chronic pain.


Euthanasia supporters claim that killing someone who has terrible, chronic pain should be allowed to kill them selves (or be killed at their request).  Currently, this is classed as murder.  



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Murder is a crime against the person.


Murder is a human contrived defination.  It had other definitions in the past, by other cultures, and likely will in the future.  Society has definted murder and defines its penalties.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Smoking dope at best harms the user and perhaps someone exposed to second-hand smoke or the toxins of the marijuana. I suspect a fetus would be harmed just as it is with tobacco and alcohol.


So, it's murder is not as bad as smoking weed?  Likewise it caries less of a legal penalties.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The issue of legalization is one of cost/benefit. There is no benefit to legalizing murder, and clearly harm. Legalization/decriminalization of marijuana has not been shown to cause harm.


There are those who would want to re-define some of the law against murder, as I mentioned above.  And if those who were receiving expensive medical care were allowed to be killed by society, then there would be a cost benefit to euthanasia.  Sophisticate not compliate (I think Parker said something like that).  Marie Juanity isn't healthy; don't use, don't legal.  Making something that is unhealthy and illegal into something legal doesn't help.  



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> In the Netherlands the GDP grew 2.4%....


Surely you're not suggesting that GDP grew because people were were toking on a doobie?  



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Here's a fact sheet on usage rates among the Dutch...


It's either a fact sheet or an advertisment.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Their overdose rates are the lowest in Europe. Our usage rate is double theirs.


Why?  Because they are getting dope that is medical save?  Or is it because they have become able to with-stand more?  Or because they're smoking less?  



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> So...we dump a bunch of money into the drug war, much of it specifically targeting marijuana. We arrest dealers. We arrest users. We use D.A.R.E. Now we have more people using it than a country in which it's legal.


I agree that the "drug war" is mis-handled.  We either need to be serious and make it a real war or stop it.

The balance of your response doesn't seem to make much sense to me.  So, if it's legal then less people will do it?   Driving while drunk is a crime, but drinking without drinking is legal --- so if we make drunk driving legal then people will stop?


----------



## kid (Feb 18, 2005)

If some drugs were legalized, potency of those drugs would be regulated.  Plus think of the govt. tax benefits of this?  Job openings would becom open.  all the big stoners would become store clerks or whatever to support their habit. and the really cool part is think of all the great music that would be made?  Just about all my favorits songs were created by people that were seriously messed up on drugs.  I don't use put thats my choice and if i make that choice other people will also.  Just remember to raise your kids well,and teach them how to make a decision.


----------



## tsdclaflin (Feb 18, 2005)

What exactly is the question:

1) Is it right to use pot?

2) Are there circumstances where marijuana would be beneficial and therefore should be legal?

3) Does it make judicial or economic sense to legalize pot in the USA?

All the answers are values-based.  Even the taking of a life is sometimes "justified". Fortunately/unfortunately the laws of this country are about "majority rules".  I am personally opposed to legalizing "recreational use" of marijuana.  But if it were possible, I would recommend making other "substances" and "activities" illegal as well.  However, I realize that one cannot "legislate righteousness"; people have to "choose" to do right.


----------



## Ray (Feb 18, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> If some drugs were legalized, potency of those drugs would be regulated. Plus think of the govt. tax benefits of this? Job openings would becom open. all the big stoners would become store clerks or whatever to support their habit.


Check and see if smoking cigarettes is fiscally beneficial in America?  Do taxpayers end up paying more to take care of people with lung cancer and such?  Or do is the boost to the economy because of growing and selling tabacco a bigger benfit.

If the downside to cigarette usage is bigger than the advantage; what about the upside to marijuana versus the downside to maraijuana?


----------



## kid (Feb 18, 2005)

Maryjane is not like cigarettes because its not chemically infused and sprayed with arsinic and all that crap.  Its a natural plant, that doesn't need to be smoked to be used, now i know smoking it is more traditional, but you can also ingest it wich has the same effects.  how many people have you heard of that died from smoking pot?  Its not a halucinagen like acid,mushrooms, or payodi; so you don't hear about people thinking that they can fly or are bullet- proof.  You need to have laws for it i think kind of like drinking.  And who are we to tell people what they can and can't do?  Just cause something is unhealthy doesnt give us the right to forbid the usage.  Look at McDonalds for instance, how many people are over weight and have high colestorol from eating fast food?  More than 2/3 s of the country is overweight but we don't try to regulate food concumption.  Driving cars is also a very deadly thing, but with laws and regulations we are able to minimize the horrible effects of them.  What about equall rights for every one?  Are you just going to try and take care of youself and leave the other person to fend for themself?  If your going to fight against something that causes harm to someone, fight for all of the reasons, not just one.


----------



## Ray (Feb 18, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> Maryjane is not like cigarettes because its not chemically infused and sprayed with arsinic and all that crap. Its a natural plant...


Hemlock is a natural plant and it is poison.  Rocks are natural but not edible.



			
				kid said:
			
		

> If your going to fight against something that causes harm to someone, fight for all of the reasons, not just one.


Do you mean: if someone wants to fight against something that is harmful then they should either fight against everything that is harmful or stop fighting against the one thing?

That's nonsense


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Feb 18, 2005)

I am all for helping those who need it. However, I am unwilling to force people to give up their hard earned dollars to subsidize a users existance. ie. taxes/public funds. If someone wants to smoke, they can pay for their own lung cancer treatment. If someone wants to do drugs, we can teach beg and plead, but its up to that person and their family to carry that burden. Not everyone else.


----------



## kid (Feb 18, 2005)

My bad, i said that wrong.  You can fight for whatever you want but to neglect that other things are potentialy more dangerous to all around why not start at the top of the list and work your way down if your going to do it one at a time then fight for something thats going to save the most lives.


Rocks are natural but how many people try to smoke a peise of granit or eat it for that matter?  I'm not familiar with Hemlock, but if its poisonous its no wonder why its not eaten, have scientist figured out another use for it?  Most likly it has some service if not just Photosynthesis.  Pot does not cause death when eaten or smoked,its by far the lesser of evils.  


What about marijuana threatens you or your family that you think that its ok to take rights away from another?


----------



## kid (Feb 19, 2005)

Ray sorry if i came on strong there, but its how i look at things; i enjoy your input so lets keep it rolling please.


----------



## Ray (Feb 19, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> My bad, i said that wrong. You can fight for whatever you want but to neglect that other things are potentialy more dangerous to all around why not start at the top of the list and work your way down if your going to do it one at a time then fight for something thats going to save the most lives.


I should fight against the serious stuff now and fight against the less serious stuff later?  Why not fight for all that I believe in, at all times and in all places?



			
				kid said:
			
		

> Rocks are natural but how many people try to smoke a peise of granit or eat it for that matter?


Now do you understand why "it's natural" is a bad justifier of things? 



			
				kid said:
			
		

> I'm not familiar with Hemlock, but if its poisonous its no wonder why its not eaten, have scientist figured out another use for it? Most likly it has some service if not just Photosynthesis.


Scientists job is to discover the truth of the universe.  How does it all work; where did it all come from and where is it all going.  It's up to technology, industry, soceity and individuals to discover how to use things more advantageously.



			
				kid said:
			
		

> Pot does not cause death when eaten or smoked,its by far the lesser of evils.


So, you've identified it as an evil?  And it's a lesser evil; so is dog poop but I'll bet you aren't eating that.



			
				kid said:
			
		

> What about marijuana threatens you or your family that you think that its ok to take rights away from another?


There is no constitutionally enumerated rate to smoke dope.  What social evils (lack of education, lack of health care, and so on) don't threaten us all?  Do you think that we can afford to not take care of others and still have an abundant life (we in the US have relative material abundance when compared with others).

Who is worth saving?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 19, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Who is worth saving?


Whomever wants and/or asks to be saved.  Here's a better question - from what are you saving them?  Is the role of government to control, or to regulate?  Who is responsible for the actions of an individual?  

It seems to me that the govenment is already in the business of regulating drugs; this argument is about classification.  The question is, why is marijuana classified as being more harmful than other perfectly legal, but regulated drugs such as alcohol and nicotine?  What about caffeine?  These are all available for recreational use.

My position is that anyone who smokes cigarettes or drinks alcohol, but disagrees with the legalization of marijuana is being hypocritical.  Anyone who chooses not to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol because of their harmful effects, yet directs their energy toward the marijuana debate rather than attacking the legality of the other substances is misdirecting their priorities.  I challenge anyone interested to demonstrate how natural marijuana is a more harmful substance than tobacco and its additives.  I challenge anyone to demonstrate that the potential impairment of marijuana can manifest in a more socially destructive way than alcohol.  

Essentially, what I'm saying here is that weed and booze and tobacco are all equally unhealthy.  So, either accept them all and let people choose for themselves, or fight them all equally.  

The "gateway drug" proposition is all that is left, and I find it to be invalid.  Particularly from debators who haven't tried it themselves.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 19, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> I am all for helping those who need it. However, I am unwilling to force people to give up their hard earned dollars to subsidize a users existance. ie. taxes/public funds. If someone wants to smoke, they can pay for their own lung cancer treatment. If someone wants to do drugs, we can teach beg and plead, but its up to that person and their family to carry that burden. Not everyone else.




Your hard earned tax dollars are going towards the War On Drugs.  In 2003 alone $19 billion was spent on the drug war.  That's roughly $600 dollars a second.

I know a number of people whose children right now are struggling with addictions.  Most of the families have reasonably good incomes and insurance programs, and their children are of an age where they're still covered.  

A common lamentation I hear from them is that the insurance doesn't provide coverage for quality rehabilitation.   Rehab costs, they say, are extremely high.  They'll have to pay out of pocket if they're going to put their child through a good program.

Given that many addicts don't have familial financial support or insurance programs, they'll be caught up in the cycle of addiction and never be able to get out without government intervention.  Is that so bad?  Yes...because they'll end up either in prison--for which we pay--or end up stealing to support their habits--for which we pay--or end up killing someone while under the influence--for which we pay.

Ray in bold:
*
Euthanasia supporters claim that killing someone who has terrible, chronic pain should be allowed to kill them selves (or be killed at their request). Currently, this is classed as murder. * 

A red herring.  The topic was not euthanasia.  The topic was, and is, the legalization of marijuana.  Put it into the context it was framed.

*No, there is no failure in my simplistic arguement. The logic used to justify legalized dope have been used to aruge the legalization of just about anything.*

It fails completely.  You did not argue that the logic used to justify marijuana legalization was used to argue for "just about anything."  Your original statement, which I refuted, was _"Penalties for murder, for example, do not stop people from murdering but that doesn't mean it should be legalized."_   As I pointed out the two are completely different.  You are arguing with a fallacious analogy.

And no, the arguments for marijuana legalization have not been used to justify the legalization of murder, which you suggest given the context.

*So, it's murder is not as bad as smoking weed? Likewise it caries less of a legal penalties.*

You suggest here that I am claiming a fetus' murder is not as bad as smoking weed.  Again you try to steer the argument off course with an irrelevancy.  We were not talking about the murder of a fetus, but exposure to toxins _in utero_.  I made no mention of murder of a fetus, nor are we arguing the morality of that issue.  

*Surely you're not suggesting that GDP grew because people were were toking on a doobie? * 

On the contrary.  Subtleties are somewhat lost on you, I see.  I was suggesting that there seems to be no productivity decline in the Netherlands in spite of this apparent tear in their moral fabric.  They seem to work just fine regardless of their free access to this absolutely evil and debilitating narcotic.  

*It's either a fact sheet or an advertisment.*

I'm sure you find writing that easier than refuting the facts.  

*Driving while drunk is a crime, but drinking without drinking is legal --- so if we make drunk driving legal then people will stop?*

I'm not sure if "drinking without drinking" is legal or not, but I'll assume you meant "drinking without driving is legal."  In any case I think you know perfectly well what I meant.  

Nobody is advocating for the right to drive while under the influence of marijuana.  They're arguing for the legalization of its use, not for behaviors once it is used.   Right now a 21 year old man in Kansas will face years in prison for having an ounce of marijuana in his home...but not if he has a six pack of beer.  

Ray, you're comparing apples and oranges in attempt to spin your arguments.  You use red herrings so as to move the topic off course and distract the reader from the issue at hand.  When presented with data, you dismiss it without counterpoint.

I'm not sure I'll engage you in debate further, as you don't seem to know the fundamentals of argumentative reasoning.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Point being that pot is (sometimes) argued as non-addictive.




The fact that it is even argued as being addictive should tell us something.  

Alcohol is addictive, and nobody disputes that.  Alcoholism's impact on society is clearly adverse, as you well know having no doubt worked accident scenes and domestic violence scenes where alcohol has been involved.  Yet alcohol possession and use among those 21 and up isn't illegal, and we don't tie up the courts or cram the jails and prisons full of people who merely use alcohol or possess it.  Alcoholism itself isn't a crime, and we don't see courts forcing people into rehabilitation programs merely for being drunk or possessing alcohol in their homes.  Nor do we spend billions a year of taxpayers money fighting alcohol use, possession, or addiction.  

Alcoholism's addiction rate is at roughly ten percent in this country.  In the Netherlands the constant use of marijuana--whether one could call it addiction or responsible casual use--is far below that.  Studies here in the U.S. seem to reinforce that.  The vast majority of people whio ever use it try it for awhile, perhaps smoke it recreationally for several years, and then drop it.  There is no indication anywhere that this tendency to move on and away from the drug is due to its illegality.  People simply outgrow it.  Not so with alcohol.

My point is that should a drug be addictive, that in itself doesn't constitute a reason for it being made illegal.  It is hypocritical to allow the consumption recreational drugs that have proven and severe consequences to the health of the user (nicotine and alcohol) and then forbid a recreational drug whose deleterious effects are a fraction of those of the legal ones.

TGace, your link to the Swedish drug program outline was interesting, but deceptive.  It didn't mention the efficacy of the program, merely that it was illegal.

Sweden, granted, has half the recreational users that Netherlands has.  However, their problematic user rate (read: addiction) is roughly the same.  

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3733/is_200407/ai_n9419548/pg_5

The article above has a number of interesting points related to this topic.

It ought be noted, too, that in Sweden possession of small amounts of cannabis result in a fine, and larger amounts result net coercive treatment programs.  Marijuana offenses are treated far more gently than, say, in parts of the United States where one can face life imprisonment.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Feb 20, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> It ought be noted, too, that in Sweden possession of small amounts of cannabis result in a fine, and larger amounts result net coercive treatment programs. Marijuana offenses are treated far more gently than, say, in parts of the United States where one can face life imprisonment.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...


Not an extremely different case than here. Recreational use in my state is a violation (not a crime) punished by a fine. As a Sgt. I cant even place bail on a rec. marijuana arrest. As to dealers and major "weight" arrests (read pounds:multiple) you need to be a major player to get any time, unless you get caught by the Feds or the local case gets routed to federal court. Most of these "recreational pot heads" doing life are "anecdotal" stories at best.


----------



## kid (Feb 20, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The vast majority of people whio ever use it try it for awhile, perhaps smoke it recreationally for several years, and then drop it. There is no indication anywhere that this tendency to move on and away from the drug is due to its illegality. People simply outgrow it. Not so with alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve


I'm in total agreement here, I my self am living proof to this. I smoked pot since 13 years old, i smoked it just about everyday after i turned 16 and had a job to pay for it. Then i did that until i was 20 years old and smoked it for about 2 months on and off and just stopped smoking it. If i was at a social interaction (a party) and it was around i never felt compelled to use it. I have tons of funny stories about being high and the crap that happened, that i still tell to this day. But i dont use that anymore and it was easy to quit. Now also when iwas around 12 i started smoking cigs. When i was thirteen my friends and i where already having nic fits in junior high 7th grade. By the time i had a job i was chain smoking them, untill i was 22 yrs old. And there is not a day that goes by yet that i don't want one so if you ask me what is potentialy more dangerous its easy to tell you. they say that a joint has about as much tar in it as 5 cigs well the average cig smoker goes through a pack a day, thats four or five doobie snacks (joints). the average pot smoke doesnt even smoke joints anymore. They use pipes, (kind of like tobacco pipes just cooler looking) 1 joint would fill that pipe around 2 1/2 times. Now a cig smoker doesn't usually share a cigarette with 3 other people 4 if you include yourself. A pot smoker ussually doesn't smoke it alone its something that is shared between friends, maybe average 3 people 4 including the supplier. so there is even less tar going around. The average pot smoker would maybe smoke 3 to 4 bowls of weed from his/her pipe. It is done socially not alone, less tar per person, not addictive, not sprayed with poisons and addictive chemicals, smells good, and is being used for a purpose. Unlike cigs: which is used when alone, more tar per person, highly addictive, sprayed with 
Acetanisole 
Acetic Acid 
Acetoin 
Acetophenone 
6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane 
2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine 
2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran 
Acetylpyrazine 
2-Acetylpyridine 
3-Acetylpyridine 
2-Acetylthiazole 
Aconitic Acid 
dl-Alanine 
Alfalfa Extract 
Allspice Extract,Oleoresin, and Oil 
Allyl Hexanoate 
Allyl Ionone 
Almond Bitter Oil 
Ambergris Tincture 
Ammonia 
Ammonium Bicarbonate 
Ammonium Hydroxide 
Ammonium Phosphate Dibasic 
Ammonium Sulfide 
Amyl Alcohol 
Amyl Butyrate
just to name a few and this is in alphabetical order and its only part of the A's. Smells Horrible, tastes horrible, and really does nothing for the person besides quell the addictive urge. Now why is one leagal and not the other. Pot is by far less harmful than cigs.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 20, 2005)

Tgace in bold:

*Not an extremely different case than here. Recreational use in my state is a violation (not a crime) punished by a fine. As a Sgt. I cant even place bail on a rec. marijuana arrest. As to dealers and major "weight" arrests (read pounds:multiple) you need to be a major player to get any time, unless you get caught by the Feds or the local case gets routed to federal court. * 

I'd say there is a significant difference between your jurisdiction in New York and Sweden insofar as to how they treat drug abuse and treatment.  Theirs is a socialized system, and their method of jurisprudence is totally different from ours.  You indicated as much yourself by saying their program "works,"  and it seems you think that our programs do not.

Are you suggesting the program works in your area?  The post above indicates you're not particularly satisfied with the system in New York. Yet if your jurisdiction's system is "not extremely different" from that of Sweden, why isn't it working?  Or is it working?

Which is it, Tgace?  

And if it is working, how is it that their "problematic use" rates are equal to that of the Netherlands, where the laws are not as harsh?


*Most of these "recreational pot heads" doing life are "anecdotal" stories at best. *

Ah, thus linking it with another thread.  Touche.

I grant there is flexibility in sentencing in certain states and not all sentences will be so draconian as life in prison for ten plants.  This happened in Oklahoma to a man growing it for medicinal purposes--anecdotal but undeniably true.   

Regardless, the machinery is in place to ruin people's lives for what amounts to a mild intoxicant compared to alcohol.  Further, minor offenders now crowd our prisons.  

Now for some non-anecdotal stats:

Possession arrests nationwide amount to about 80% of marijuana busts.  Nearly half of those serving time in prisons for marijuana crimes were convicted of possession only...not trafficking.  They amount to over 3 percent of the prison population and cost taxpayers 1.2 billion dollars a year to keep housed and fed.  This does NOT include costs of investigating, arresting, prosecuting, and providing public defense for the offenders.  These offenders take up space that could be used for violent offenders, and use resources that could be directed towards fighting violent crime and property crime.

http://www.mpp.org/arrests/fas61699.html

I wonder--and please don't take this personally, as it isn't intended as such-- if as a police officer your perception of marijuana is skewed by your experience.  You often have to deal with the lowest of the low of our species, and they often are in possession of dope, if not meth, Cat, or other illegal psychoactive substances.    

I imagine you do not typically arrest people in the best neighborhoods of your area...maybe their children on occasion, and when you do sometimes these kids possess weed.  You don't get as many domestic calls, don't walk in on a vicious and violent fight between mom and dad and happen to notice dope and a handgun on the nightstand in the bedroom.  Am I right?

But those neighborhoods with their neatly manicured lawns and their BMW's in the driveway are filled with people who smoked dope in high school and college...who still maybe occasionally smoke it but likely not. If they have any addictions, it is more than likely alcohol and prescription drugs.  Marijuana is probably no longer part of their life.  

In order to keep their kids from being busted by you they have to face the problem as articulated by our President in my current signature below.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 20, 2005)

Oh, and "kid," good observation.  Cigarettes ARE more addictive than marijuana.  Far more so.

And then there is this one brand of Cuban cigar one can get in Denmark...but that's anecdotal.  I won't include it.

But damn, it's good.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Feb 20, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Possession arrests nationwide amount to about 80% of marijuana busts. Nearly half of those serving time in prisons for marijuana crimes were convicted of possession only...not trafficking. They amount to over 3 percent of the prison population and cost taxpayers 1.2 billion dollars a year to keep housed and fed. This does NOT include costs of investigating, arresting, prosecuting, and providing public defense for the offenders. These offenders take up space that could be used for violent offenders, and use resources that could be directed towards fighting violent crime and property crime.
> 
> http://www.mpp.org/arrests/fas61699.html


Yes, but possession in what ammount? A guy with a baggie in his pocket isnt doing hard time. These guys are either a doing time on a reduced charge or the "possession" was in multiple pounds.....

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/marijuana_myths_facts/myth10.pdf
http://www.preventionpathways.org/Resources/Newsletters/Insight/In01-03.2004.pdf



> *The Facts:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




​





As to the effectiveness of my "Drug Court"...well the powers that be say its effective. I do frequently re-arrest "graduates" but there is always a percentage that are just always going to have problems...so I cant really bash or praise it.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 20, 2005)

People in Jail for DWI...as a comparison.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/dwiocs.pdf


----------



## Tgace (Feb 20, 2005)

BTW..I dont believe I have ever stated that "Pot heads are the Devil!". But its illegal. I catch you with it, I do my job. If most people were smart enough to do it in thier homes and not their cars or not have it on them when they deal with me, I wouldnt catch so many....

Personally, I think alcohol and tobacco are already killing us in droves and causing massive expenses, why add another problem? Decriminalize most possession charges (which is what is starting to happen in many states) and go after the dealers. BTW people charged with "possession" of 100 lbs. of marijuana probably arent just stocking up for Saturday night. 

And as to what works in Sweden/Denmark et.al....We have a much different culture,history,tradition, ideals, geographic population dispersal and less homogenus population (race and politics) than they do. While their methods are interesting and we should study them, I would hesitate to believe that what works there will absolutely work here.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 20, 2005)

*Yes, but possession in what ammount. A guy with a baggie in his pockets isnt doing hard time. These guys are either a doing time on a reduced charge or the "possession" was in multiple pounds.....*

Multiple pounds?   Maybe in New York, but not elsewhere.  Let's see the statutes and penalties for a pound or less in a few random states, with some other penalties thrown in for flavor:

Texas:

Possession of 2 ounces or less can get you 180 days in jail.
Possession of 2 to 4 ounces can get you a year in prison.
Greater than 4 ounces to a pound can get a person up to 2 years.  

Tennessee:

1/2 ounce or less is a misdemeanor and a year in prison.
Ten plants will get you 2-12 years.
Anything over a half ounce is considered trafficking and is a felony with starting out at a year to six years for over a half ounce.

South Dakota:

2 ounces or less is a misdemeanor and a year in prison.
2 to 8 ounces is a felony and a year in prison.
8 ounces to a pound is five years.
_A positive urine test is considered possession and is punished as such._

South Carolina:

1 ounce, first offense, gets you 30 days and a misdemeanor conviction.
1 ounce, second offense, gets you a year.
Possession of greater than one ounce is considered evidence of intent to sell and is punished as such. Two ounces, for instance, will get you five years and a felony conviction.

Rhode Island:

Possession of less than a kilogram is a misdemeanor and a year in prison.
Possession within 300 yards of a school is a felony and earns a double penalty.  And this was a "blue state."  Imagine.

Puerto Rico:

Any amount, first offense, is a felony and earns three years.
Any amount, second offense, is a felony and gets a person six years.
Grow one plant and its a felony that will net you 12 years.
Paraphenalia possession is a felony that will get you three years.

Oklahoma:

Any amount, first offense, earns a year in prison.
Any amount, second offense, earns 2-10 years and is a felony.
Cultivation of a single plant can net you two years to life.

North Dakota:

Less than 1/2 ounce while operating a motor vehicle is a year in jail.
Possessing up to an ounce is a felony and a year in jail.
Anything over an ounce is five years in jail.
Paraphanalia possession is a year in jail.


I could go on and on...but why?   Note that the statutes for these states, and many more, _all provide for months to years_ of incarceration for possession of a pound or less.  

And an ounce of dope does not a dealer make.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516


Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 20, 2005)

*BTW..I dont believe I have ever stated that "Pot heads are the Devil!". But its illegal. I catch you with it, I do my job. If most people were smart enough to do it in thier homes and not their cars or not have it on them when they deal with me, I wouldnt catch so many....*

Agreed.  But then you're in a state where the fines are mild in comparison to others.  This lends people to easier embrace the rationalization "It'll never happen to me."

* 
Personally, I think alcohol and tobacco are already killing us in droves and causing massive expenses, why add another problem? * 

I agree with you on tobacco and alcohol.  As for creating another problem, we get again to the issue of whether it IS a problem or not.  Eliminate it as a crime, and we're left with addiction...and its addiction rates are very, very low compared to tobacco and booze.   

*Decriminalize most possession charges (which is what is starting to happen in many states) and go after the dealers. * 

Or legalize it, tax it, criminalize operation of heavy equipment or use of it while pregnant.  Use the tax money to fund rehab programs for all drugs and alcohol addictions.  

In your state alone in 1997 marijuana was the number TWO cash crop.  Illicit retail sales in 1995, estimated on the low end, were nearly five hundred million.  Tax that, and you've got some serious revenue for giving cops raises, hunting down child molesters, building prisons, building highways, and feeding kids in  school breakfast and lunch programs.

Or you can continue the drug war.  That year law enforcement only eradicated an estimated 25% of the harvest.  It'll be a little hard to fight a war in Iraq and a war on drugs.  You have to get the money to do both...and lately change has been a little bit scarce.  

Maybe we could tax the rich for the war on drugs.  Now THERE'S an idea to run by congress.  We'd see hand wringing from both sides of the aisles.

*BTW people charged with "possession" of 100 lbs. of marijuana probably arent just stocking up for Saturday night.*

Probably not.  But you'll note in my subsequent post that many states hammer you for minor possession.  Many states.

* 
And as to what works in Sweden/Denmark et.al....We have a much different culture,history,tradition, ideals, geographic population dispersal and less homogenus population (race and politics) than they do. While their methods are interesting and we should study them, I would hesitate to believe that what works there will absolutely work here.*

Great.  Then why bring it up at all?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Feb 20, 2005)

Your showing the possible punishments....how many people do think get convicted of the exact charge they were arrested for?

As a tangent it reminds me of the "3 strike law" objections people have. The 3 time felony pot possessor goes away for life stories.  If you could read the criminal histories Ive seen....people with books worth of arrests, felonies of all sorts...over the span of years with 1 felony conviction....the only guy Ive personally been involved in sending to prison for a pound of marijuana was a murderer on parole that got sent back to the joint. 

Things like prior arrests, criminal/drug histories and the like come into effect. (And if they play the "toss in the small fish for the bigger fish" game). Granted the guys that do go to prison for marijuana offenses arent all hardened criminals or violent people and I am open to debate about the issue of if they deserve the same treatment as those who are. However I dont buy the 1,000's of "nice, family guy, otherwise good citizens" doing hard time in the joint either.......

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/marijuana/


> *Adjudication*
> 
> During FY 2001, some 8,000 convicted Federal drug offenders had committed an offense involving marijuana. Of these offenders, 7,758 were convicted of committing a trafficking offense, while 186 were convicted of marijuana possession. Marijuana trafficking convictions represented 33% of all drug trafficking offenses, and marijuana possession convictions accounted for 48.4% of all drug possession convictions in Federal courts during FY 2001. The median amount of marijuana involved in Federal marijuana trafficking convictions was 59,000 grams, or 2,081 ounces. The median amount of marijuana involved in Federal possession convictions was 37.5 grams, or 1.3 ounces.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Feb 20, 2005)

We can keep going around and around on this. As I stated Im not against decriminalization of possession (to a degree), not for legalization. Just the way it is. This judge has an interesting,balanced and well worded opinion on the Marijuana problem and its many facets...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/rational/judge.html

The whole site, based on a PBS report is quite good actually.

And while public opinion that the "drug war" is failing is increasing, many Americans are not "for" legalization.

http://www.ndsn.org/marapr98/opinion.html


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 20, 2005)

*Your showing the possible punishments....how many people do think get convicted of the exact charge they were arrested for?*

Most don't.  We both know that.  However...

Look at the very data you provided.  Of all those serving felony time in state prisons, those serving for marijuana possession amounted to 3.7 percent of the total.  Those serving for trafficking amounted to 2.7 percent of the total.  Note again that those percentages are from a total of all felonies, not just drug felonies.  Thus 6.4% of all the felonies in state prisons that year were for marijuana offenses.  Now, look at the split again:

Greater than half of all those serving time for marijuana that year in state prisons were serving for _possession._

Now, note those Federal stats you so kindly provided:  The median amount of dope in a Federal felony conviction for POSSESSION was a whopping--get this--1.3 ounces.  That means that half of those incarcerated had less than 1.3 ounces in their possession.  Those serving time for Federal charges on possession comprised 48.4% percent of all drug charges that year.  That means, given the median, that 24.2% of those serving for possession had 1.3 ounces or less.  Roughly a quarter had a mere 37.5 grams or less.

What were you saying earlier about people not serving multiple years for a baggie?

Tgace...you're supposed to provide data to undercut my arguments, not provide data that supports them.

*As a tangent it reminds me of the "3 strike law" objections people have. The 3 time felony pot possessor goes away for life stories.  If you could read the criminal histories Ive seen....people with books worth of arrests, felonies of all sorts...over the span of years with 1 felony conviction....the only guy Ive personally been involved in sending to prison for a pound of marijuana was a murderer on parole that got sent back to the joint. * 

Indeed a tangent.  Bad guys smoke pot, ergo all people that smoke pot are bad guys?  You answer that below yourself.

*Granted the guys that do go to prison for marijuana offenses arent all hardened criminals or violent people and I am open to debate about the issue of if they deserve the same treatment as those who are. * 

That is one of the key points of this debate.  If marijuana use is not the evil it is portrayed to be then users ought not be made to pay for it.  I submit if they're violent criminals and use it, they ought to pay for their violence...not their possession.  And if they're users who are losers, likewise they ought not pay in this way for their inability to get by in life with any merit.  Likewise we shouldn't have to pay for their incarceration.  If some of them are not hardened criminals or violent people--as you grant--then will they be hardened and violent after years in a state or federal prison?   

This issue is whether marijuana use and possession ought to be a crime.  If not, and if it indeed ought to be legalized, it merits no weight in additional sentencing or in "third strike laws."  That is clear and not up for debate.  

Another point in this debate is the heavy economic burden we face with our current marijuana laws--a burden carried by the taxpayer.  That you have yet to address.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Feb 20, 2005)

Marijuana is but a small part of the "Drug War"....And ill say it again, Im not a "Lock up ALL pot heads" proponent. As simple possession is a violation in my State I dont even HAVE to arrest for it. And Im fairly sure many NY Sate cops will tell stories of smashing bowls, grinding up joints and sending people home (with a call to the parents when they are kids)....

Im really liking this PBS site...balanced and some interesting facts I didnt know. Like the issue of State by State enforcement. There has been discussion of legalization and the problem of uneven State law and the Chaos it could cause.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/interviews/kleiman.html



> Well, the illegal drug problem is one thing; illegal drug users are a different thing. If you took marijuana out of the equation, you would be left with relatively few--several million illicit drug users. You'd still be left with more than 85% of the total revenues of the illicit drug business. So the vast number of marijuana users don't account for much of the total dollars spent.
> 
> 
> The same thing is true if you look among marijuana users. The couple of million who stay stoned all day, every day, account for the vast bulk of the total marijuana consumed, and thus the total revenues of the illicit marijuana industry. That's typical. The money in any drug, including alcohol, is in the addicts, not the casual users. There was a big fuss during the 80s about how much casual middle-class drug use there was and how respectable folks were supporting the markets. It's certainly true that most people who are illicit drug users are employed, stable respectable citizens. But it doesn't follow that if we could get the employed, stable respectable citizens to stop using illicit drugs, the problem would mostly go away.
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Feb 20, 2005)

Same Site



> Marijuana generates more arrests than any other illicit drug. Much of that doesn't have anything to do with law enforcement specifically targeting drug infractions. Much of that is literally somebody's driving a little funny, gets pulled over and the cop smells the marijuana smoke or sees the baggie on the seat. There are relatively few police officers out there who are spending their time trying to catch people using marijuana. More in suburban and rural areas obviously than in urban areas, but marijuana enforcement isn't a very high priority, it's just that there's a lot of marijuana smoking.
> 
> 
> And there are a lot of people that still act as if it were more or less legal. And therefore, violate Cheech and Chong's first rule of marijuana smoking, which is don't blow smoke [in a] cop's face. So there are a lot of arrests. Most of them don't lead to much of anything, except annoyance and embarrassment.
> ...


Like I said we can go around with dueling statistics and studies (they are so clear and accurate after all  ). I dont know where we can end this....We do need to look at Marijuana, but in the long run its not really the main "front" in the "Drug War"...More like one of the smaller islands in the Pacific campaign.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 20, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> What were you saying earlier about people not serving multiple years for a baggie?
> 
> Tgace...you're supposed to provide data to undercut my arguments, not provide data that supports them.


And of that HUGE percentage, how many are facing prision time with possession and/or trafficing as the ONLY charge? You can be charged with possession, weapons, vehicle and traffic misdemeanors, resisting etc etc. all on one arrest incident and after plea bargians, deals and so on wind up with various results. Many people are incarcerated with multiple charges on them. Those numbers just show an offense by offense breakdown. I still contend that joe college student caught with a 1.5 oz bag in his dorm and nothing else, isnt sitting in the pen....and if a few are, it because they fell victim to taking "guilty as charged" pleas to manditory sentences. Bad lawyers or special DA circumstances....

BTW I believe your math is off somewhere. Heres the actual State Felony study. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fssc00.pdf it says the total Marijuana incarceration percentage is 2.7% of the total felony count. Which i can only assume is for possession because trafficing is not stated as product specific. And those percentages are not all "prison terms" as 30%+ are probation sentences. Statistics...love em or hate em.

Again these are people who, by a large margian plead to a felony count. Report says somewhere in the 90% range took a plea to a felony.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I still contend that joe college student caught with a 1.5 oz bag in his dorm isnt sitting in the pen....


Fair enough, but the reality is that he _could_ be, given the law as it is.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 20, 2005)

Yeah. True. But you "could go to jail" your first shoplifting (some 16 yo putting a CD in his pocket isnt the crime of the century either), DWI, etc. but almost none do. Its against the law and when you choose to do it (right or wrong) thats the chance you take. Sentences are limits, thats what pleas, probation and councling are in place for. An arrest isnt a conviction, few are convicted for what they were initially arrested for.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> BTW I believe your math is off somewhere. Heres the actual State Felony study. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fssc00.pdf it says the total Marijuana incarceration percentage is 2.7% of the total felony count. Which i can only assume is for possession because trafficing is not stated as product specific. And those percentages are not all "prison terms" as 30%+ are probation sentences. Statistics...love em or hate em.


Looking at that chart again, the 2.7% IS for trafficking. I mis-read. The possession percentage must be the 3.7% although I cant locate that breakdown in the report. Possession is listed as a total drug measurement, which is listed as 12% for all drugs. Marijuana being 3.7% of that I assume. Math was never my strong suit. 

That 48% number you mentioned is the Federal percentage of drug charges, and the Feds arent targeting "Johnny dime bag or two" by and large. I believe many of those small ammount convictions are when they busted a big dealer and (unfortunately for the feds) only caught him with a small bag. At least thats an opinion based on what I have seen.

I still find the chart of "type of felony sentence imposed" interesting. Some get Prison, some jail and some probation. So out of that "relatively small %" of pot users that actually face a felony sentence nearly 1/3 get probation insted of time behind bars. The report lists the offenses as "most serious charge", but how many that do get time are the result of a "look we'll drop the weapon charge, suspended DL charge, the dealing charge and the reisiting if you take the plea to possession." type affair? 

Raw stats dont give a crystal clear impression of how and why marijuana offense incarcerations are really being doled out.


----------



## kid (Feb 21, 2005)

Let me tell you something.  When i was about 17 or 18 my friends and i got pulled over for a burnt out head light. the officer said that he smelled alcohol in the can.  none of us had been drinking.  But not two minutes prior we had just finished smoking a big ask spliff.  There was five of us in the car at the time, and each of us had our own bag of weed on us.  The officer said "If i search the car and if i find anything your all going to get in trouble."  Well the Driver thought that  if he handed the officer his onie (one hitter) that it would be all done.  He guessed wrong.  We all had to get out of the car and give breathalizers and got searched.  The officer called for back-up and two more squads came and helped out the first.  They found about half a pound on our persons then started searching the car.  They found about another half pound in the car.  Well we got talked to individually by the first officer and our stories must have matched cause all we got was a slap on the wrist.  They stole our pot, which was extreamly good stuff.  Put it all in one bag and said all he was going to do was bring us individually to our parents and show them what we are doing.  All we had to do was that and for two weeks page this cop ever other day and tell him how things were going and at at the end of two weeks pass a feild sobriety test ( which i can pass anyday).  Any ways that was in the state of minnesota and it was nothing.  like all he wanted to do was give us a bad high or something.  It just gave us all a good story to tell.  We all came to the conclusion that they stole out dope and kept it to them selves, it seems unlikly but it was never in the paper or never turned in.  What happened to our stash?  The cops smoked it.


----------



## Melissa426 (Feb 21, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> * .... They stole our pot, which was extreamly good stuff*. .... at the end of two weeks pass a feild sobriety test ( *which i can pass anyday*).....  *We all came to the conclusion that they stole out dope and kept it to them selves, it seems unlikly but it was never in the paper or never turned in. What happened to our stash? The cops smoked it*.


Holy cow. 
"KID" just made my argument against making pot legal. Do we really want a society of people with this many neurons in search of a synapse?

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 21, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Holy cow.
> "KID" just made my argument against making pot legal. Do we really want a society of people with this many neurons in search of a synapse?
> 
> Peace,
> Melissa




Why the personal attack against "Kid?"


Given they had a pound and didn't get hammered for it might reasonably lead to the conclusion that it was stolen.  On the other hand, it might have been confiscated and used in a future sting.   Kid's state has fairly light penalties, so the officers might have elected to let these minors off the hook...though I can't understand why they didn't grill them as to where they got it.

On the other hand, they may have known where they got it ahead of time (hence the "smell of alcohol" claim) or found out later...and Kid never learned this from one of his friends.  That might be why they never got prosecuted.  One of his friends might have turned in the guy who sold them the stuff.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Feb 21, 2005)

Actually, Kid makes a point for legalizing all of it. I noticed it was illegal for them to have the pot. It was illegal for them to try to hide it from the cops and it was illegal for the cops to "smoke it themselves". The punishment for the kids would probably be minor. The punishment for the cops would be loss of jobs and jail time. 

Did any of that stop the activity from taking place? No.
Consider this: 
How much money is the public spending on the drug war?
How many people have died fighting it?
How much bigger and more lucrative are the drug cartels?
What is the major source of funding for street gangs?
How much bigger, more violent, and more widespread are those street gangs?
Have we seen this before in prohibition or is this different? If so why? 

:idunno: No knee jerk reactions now, think about it.


----------



## kid (Feb 21, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Holy cow.
> "KID" just made my argument against making pot legal. Do we really want a society of people with this many neurons in search of a synapse?
> 
> Peace,
> Melissa


Thats kinda funny.  So you think everyone that smokes pot or used too is slow?  come on give your fellows a little more support than that.  I realize that in that story we all made bad decisions, that happens.  Everyone in that car can thank their lucky stars that they didn't get in trouble, thats not on our pernament record.  And for the record i want to say I am going to defend myself and my friends, we are not slow as you seem to think. Our neurons aren't asking for directions to the nearest synapse.  One of the guys in that car is finishing med school soon, another girl finished school and is a writer.  The driver i think he finished highscool and became a roofer.  And another is now a teacher.  i myself during that time i was captain of my high school chess team we took 8th in state.  Now i'm going to school and doing well.  What you said disgusts me.  It was completely durogratory to me and a lot of people i know and that you know as well.   Heres a little something for you.  Think about this one instead of all of us being stoned, how about something like i don't know, how about all of us being drunk.  Whats more scary?


----------



## Ray (Feb 21, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> ...And for the record i want to say I am going to defend myself and my friends, we are not slow as you seem to think. Our neurons aren't asking for directions to the nearest synapse. One of the guys in that car is finishing med school soon...


Great!  It's bad enough that a lot of doctors are now younger than me; and now they're dope smokers?  Someone with the education of a doctor should certainly know better than to smoke dope.



			
				kid said:
			
		

> ...completely durogratory to me and a lot of people i know and that you know as well. Heres a little something for you. Think about this one instead of all of us being stoned, how about something like i don't know, how about all of us being drunk. Whats more scary?


From the picture you paint, it's all scary to me!


----------



## kid (Feb 21, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Great! It's bad enough that a lot of doctors are now younger than me; and now they're dope smokers? Someone with the education of a doctor should certainly know better than to smoke dope.
> 
> From the picture you paint, it's all scary to me!


 

Hows that make you feel?  A stoner has acheived something that it took you much longer too.  Just more proof that it's not as bad as you people think.  The picture wasn't meant to make you feel good.  Its supposed to act like a kick to the groin, for wasting your time against the wrong foe.


----------



## Ray (Feb 21, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> Hows that make you feel? A stoner has acheived something that it took you much longer too. Just more proof that it's not as bad as you people think. The picture wasn't meant to make you feel good. Its supposed to act like a kick to the groin, for wasting your time against the wrong foe.


Your words are confirmation than that I, indeed, have the right foe.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 21, 2005)

Tgace in bold:

*We can keep going around and around on this. * 

True.  But what little go about we've had has been very instructive for me.  You've provided some good stuff, and I've dug up some interesting stuff.  Until this thread got going, I'd never given the issue more than passing consideration.  It's been stimulating.  

*As I stated Im not against decriminalization of possession (to a degree), not for legalization.* 

Which I can respect (to a degree), while still debating certain points on which I take exception.

*The whole site, based on a PBS report is quite good actually.

And while public opinion that the "drug war" is failing is increasing, many Americans are not "for" legalization.*

Fair enough.  There have been a number of times in history where many Americans didn't favor something, yet it came about through vigorous activism.

*We do need to look at Marijuana, but in the long run its not really the main "front" in the "Drug War"...More like one of the smaller islands in the Pacific campaign.*

Good analogy. I liken it to Pelelieu, which brought needless casualties, did little good, and could have been by-passed by MacArthur.

*
I still contend that joe college student caught with a 1.5 oz bag in his dorm and nothing else, isnt sitting in the pen....and if a few are, it because they fell victim to taking "guilty as charged" pleas to manditory sentences. Bad lawyers or special DA circumstances....*

Which again I suggest is colored by your perception from serving as an LEO in New York, a tolerant state by most standards.  I'll concede that a number are there for possession on a plea, but I'm unwilling to accept that some of these southern and western states and their "virtuecrats" aren't hammering people for simple possession.

*Looking at that chart again, the 2.7% IS for trafficking. I mis-read. The possession percentage must be the 3.7% although I cant locate that breakdown in the report. Possession is listed as a total drug measurement, which is listed as 12% for all drugs. Marijuana being 3.7% of that I assume. Math was never my strong suit.*

To the right of table one, upper right hand corner of the same page, right above the paragraph about sentences for felonies. The marijuana and possession percentages are percentages of all felonies, not percentages of all drug crimes.  The 12.6 percentage figure for possession likewise reflects possession offenses related to all felonies.  In short, of all the felonies listed, possession convictions for any drug were 12.6 percent.  Subtract marijuana possession and you get the percentage of possession charges of other drugs as being 9.9% of the total felonies.

I'm weak at math, too...but my calculator tells me that a third of all the possession convictions are for dope according to that study.  To be fair, this doesn't reflect what the pro-dope advocates are saying...but it is still a significant number.  The median noted earlier is particularly interesting.

You're right.  The PBS article is interesting.  I've bookmarked it.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## kid (Feb 21, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Your words are confirmation than that I, indeed, have the right foe.


Let me ask you this what is potentialy the most dangerous situation? 

A)    A drunk person behind the wheel of a car, whos motor skills and hand eye cordination are  messed up, with three friends equally drunk. 

B)    A person who hasn't slept for 24 hours and driving a car, with three friends who are eqally tired.

C)    A person who just smoked a joint with three friends equally stoned, driving a car.  

That was the point in my ending before.  You just chose to twist my words how you wanted to perceive them.  And your right it isn't a pretty picture but this does happen.  Now if pot was legalized it could have a positive effect on America.  Take a moment to figure out the pros and cons of that.  People are going to smoke pot anyways, and you or I or everone that doesn't like it can't change that.  But you know what, I'm willing to live with it.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2005)

:asian:

When it comes to other states and their laws, fortunately or unfortunately thats been par for the course in our nation. While a pot smoker may get a raw deal in say Texas, he would probably get a much better deal if he had to shoot an intruder in his home than say New Hampshire.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 21, 2005)

*Your words are confirmation than that I, indeed, have the right foe.*


Whoa!  A foe!  

Well, woe unto the foe!  

What's with this ganging up on the kid?  

He smoked dope.  He stopped smoking dope.  His friends smoked dope.  His friends stopped smoking dope.  The President smoked dope.  _He_ stopped smoking dope.  Give him a break, Ray.  

Regards,

Steve


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> Let me ask you this what is potentialy the most dangerous situation?
> 
> A) A drunk person behind the wheel of a car, whos motor skills and hand eye cordination are messed up, with three friends equally drunk.
> 
> ...


If legalized, who runs the pot industry? Private business? Then you create another industry whos profits depend on creating addicts and keeping people addicted to their product to make money. If theres money to be made on a vice, business will exploit it. Look at how unsavory alcohol and tobacco companies have become. If not the private sector than who, the government? What problems couldnt you think up there?


----------



## kid (Feb 21, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If legalized, who runs the pot industry? Private business? Then you create another industry whos profits depend on creating addicts and keeping people addicted to their product to make money. If theres money to be made on a vice, business will exploit it. Look at how unsavory alcohol and tobacco companies have become. If not the private sector than who, the government? What problems couldnt you think up there?


As far as i am concerned and from the proof of my own experiences with marijuana, it is not addictive.  It does put you in a euphoria that people like, thats why people use it.  I don't think that it should be owned and regulated by major companys.  These are all things that should be listed and made into rules and laws.  Chemicals dont need to be added to it. that only happens when someone like marlboro gets their grubby hands on it and has to make it the exact same kinds and flavors throughout the world.  What kind of problems do we see know with people on the streets selling it having these big deals on the black market.  The U.S gov't is loosing and wasting money on a social club.


----------



## kid (Feb 21, 2005)

Thanks hard head i appreciate your support and for watching my back.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2005)

Im trying to avoid sources that could appear biased as there are a lot of sources that say marijuana can be addictive. My grandfather quit cigs "cold turkey" too and so have others but nobody can argue that cigs are non addictive. Any chemical that induces a "high" will loose effectiveness if the body gains a tolerence, requiring more for the same effect. After a point the user will experience withdrawal symptoms (you should see me when i miss my coffee  )

http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/marijuana-information.htm
http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/jf/drugs/marijuana.asp
http://www.drug-rehabs.org/faqs/FAQ-marijuana.php
http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/atod/marijuana.htm



> Is marijuana addictive?
> [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]No one would argue that marijuana is as addictive as alcohol or cocaine. However, it's wrong to say that it is not at all addictive. More and more studies are finding that marijuana has addictive properties. Both animal and human studies show physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms from marijuana, including irritability, restlessness, insomnia, nausea and intense dreams. Tolerance to marijuana also builds up rapidly. Heavy users need 8 times higher doses to get the same effects as infrequent users.[/font]
> 
> [font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]For a small percentage of people who use it, marijuana can be highly addictive. It is estimated that 10% to 14% of users will become heavily dependent. More than 120,000 people in the US seek treatment for marijuana addiction every year. Because the consequences of marijuana use can be subtle and insidious, it is more difficult to recognize signs of addiction. Cultural and societal beliefs that marijuana cannot be addictive make it less likely for people to seek help or to get support for quitting.


[/font]

[font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]So while Marijuana has a "low" addiction rate, it can be addictive physically and/or psychologically to some people. I admit this isnt a "break it" argument against legalization...just a clarification.[/font]


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2005)

Personal opinion: The whole "gateway drug" thing with Marijuana isnt so much about the drug itself as the people using it. The whole "look Im doing something illegal and havent been caught, even if I do its no big deal". That "mentality" is the gate to heavier stuff for some (not all). I went to college, I saw a few marijuana smoking people do the "what the hell" thing and try something heavier. Again its not a "make it or break it" point. But thats how I see it. Either put teeth into the law, make it socially unacceptable (like smoking is becoming) or decriminalize individual use/possession of it so the "**** the man" factor isnt so high.


----------



## Blind (Feb 21, 2005)

Just to interrupt a bit and throw in my ten cents, alcohol is by far and away the main gateway drug, I would lay money on it that most people when they try a drug(illicit) for the first time had imbibed alcohol first.

TGace sounds very reasonable to me, personally I don't really care for the stuff, there certainly would be a lot less unnecessary arrests and court cases for what is for the most part a harmless drug(more so than alcohol anyway-my preferred pastime).

I think that some peoples lives end up permanently shot because of a misdemeanor in regards to weed, decriminalizing it seems the way to go in my mind-spend the effort on catching up with the really bad boys like coke heroin etc.

Part of my thinking though is legalize the lot and that is natural selection right there, more drugs to the right people--see Dennis Leary for that theory, it has some merit, and people who jack cars and commit crimes on it could be executed, they obviously have too much time on their hands anyway.

Last paragraph only half serious.


----------



## kid (Feb 21, 2005)

tgrace


I meant pot is not physically addicting.  Although the high itself is addicting the drug THC is no more addicting than a Mcdonalds french fries.  Its all up to the user. If he wants to get high but can't find it, or get his french fries not a problem, he/she doesnt go through withdrawls and start chewing and licking their lips or have a nervous shake in their hands.  Its in everyones power to make personal decisions we don't have the right to take that awy from somone.  Its no better then stealing from your neighbor.  We just dont do that.  Now if it became legal i would be afraid that some big corp. would try to take control and sell it.  more chemicals would be added to it and mostlikly it would eventually become physically addictive.  But this is what is cool about marijuana its very easy to grow.  It requires low maintence; therefor, local farmers could grow it, or even regular joes/janes like us.  And also i had mentioned that i had quit smoking cigs "cold turkey" It was not easy, and still crave them. Ask your popps if he does.


----------



## Darksoul (Feb 21, 2005)

-Once again I want to point out the maturity levels of Americans. It might be because of our history so far in this nation that we see the current problems with pot. Legalizing it now, I'm just not convinced America is ready for that. It seems we're not all concerned about people smoking pot, but rather their behavior in regards to the smoking. And yeah, their lungs might not get as screwed as say smoking cigs, but eventually, will they have to seek medical care for their smoking? I practice kung-fu, don't drink or smoke anything, and become ill about once every 3 years. I don't visit the doctor unless required for a job, or I'm on my deathbed. So why do I have to pay a crapload for health care? Yeah, I blame the insurance company, the State of New York, the gov't, and people who don't take care of themselves, who cause their own medical problems. My rates wouldn't be so high if I wasn't paying for these kinds of people. I dish out about $370 a month. Whatever. As for the gateway drug theory, I think that may have more to do with a person's environment, who they hang out with, not the drug itself.  

A---)


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2005)

http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/jf/drugs/marijuana.asp



> Physical Effects
> 
> When a person smokes or ingests marijuana, THC and other chemicals enter the user's body. The chemicals make their way through the bloodstream to the brain, where THC and the neurotransmitter anandamide bond to cannabinoid receptors. High concentrations of these receptors exist in those parts of the brain associated with short-term memory and reasoning, coordination, and unconscious muscle movements.5 These findings may explain the loss of short-term memory and coordination associated with heavy marijuana use. Marijuana also causes the user's heart rate to increase, the mouth to become dry (commonly referred to as "cotton-mouth"), blood vessels in the eyes to expand (producing bloodshot eyes), and can also cause the "munchies"  the increase in appetite that many users experience.
> 
> Long-term marijuana use produces changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term use of other drugs, and can cause behaviors such as uncontrollable drug craving, delinquent behavior, and aggression. Regular marijuana smokers also face some of the same problems as cigarette addicts, including daily cough and phlegm, symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and frequent chest colds. Because marijuana is usually smoked without a filter, the amount of carbon monoxide and tar inhaled by marijuana smokers is three to five times greater than that inhaled by tobacco smokers.


As to health issues...the juries still out (actually hasnt even been selected yet.).


http://www.cancer.org/docroot/cri/content/cri_2_4_2x_what_are_the_risk_factors_for_lung_cancer_26.asp


> Marijuana
> 
> Marijuana contains more tar than cigarettes. Marijuana is also inhaled very deeply and the smoke is held in the lungs for a long time. Marijuana is smoked all the way to the end where tar content is the highest. Many of the cancer-causing substances in tobacco are also found in marijuana. Because marijuana is an illegal substance, it is not possible to control whether it contains fungi, pesticides, and other additives. Medical reports suggest marijuana may cause cancers of the mouth and throat. It has been hard to prove a connection between marijuana and lung cancer because it is not easy to gather information about the use of illegal drugs. Also, many marijuana smokers also smoke cigarettes. This makes it difficult to know how much of the risk is from tobacco and how much is from marijuana.


----------



## Ray (Feb 21, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *Your words are confirmation than that I, indeed, have the right foe.*
> 
> He smoked dope. He stopped smoking dope. His friends smoked dope. His friends stopped smoking dope. The President smoked dope. _He_ stopped smoking dope. Give him a break, Ray. [/QUOTE]
> No, the "Kid" isn't the foe.  He asked if I shouldn't fight against things that are worse and wait till later to fight against things that are bad, but not quite as bad.  He's not the foe, he's a victim.
> ...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 21, 2005)

Here's a link to studies on marijuana and cancer:

http://davidhadorn.com/cannabis/cancer.htm

Cannabis and cognition (thinking):

http://davidhadorn.com/cannabis/cogpositive.htm


*Marijuana Doesn't Dent I.Q. Permanently.*
17:50 08 April 2002 
NewScientist.com news service 
Alison Motluk 

 Smoking marijuana does not have a long-term effect on intelligence, say researchers in Canada who have followed volunteers from before birth to early adulthood. 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2140



*Long-Term Use Of Marijuana Has Minimal Impact On Cognition, Study Says*

Results Reveal No "Substantial, Systematic Effect" Of Chronic Pot Smoking On Neurocognitive Performance

July 2, 2003 - San Diego, CA, USA

San Diego, CA: Smoking marijuana long-term has little-to-no impact on neurocognitive performance in adults, according to findings published last week in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine analyzed data from 15 previously published, controlled studies regarding the impact of long-term, recreational marijuana use on neurocognitive performance including simple reaction time, verbal/language skills, executive function, motor skills, learning, and recognition, among other measurements.

"The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated," authors determined.

Marijuana smokers were indistinguishable from non-users in six of the eight neurocognitive ability areas surveyed, the study found. The two exceptions were in the domains of "learning" and "forgetting" (failure to recall or recognize), though authors said that marijuana's apparent negative impact on these skills was so slight that "the 'real life' impact of such a small and selective effect is questionable."

Because the studies did not measure volunteers' neurocognitive abilities prior to their marijuana use, nor distinguish between marijuana-only smokers and polydrug users, authors said it was impossible to verify whether the small but measurable decrements to learning and forgetting were due to marijuana or other factors. Authors did note, however, that by failing to control for such factors, they "actually increased the likelihood of finding a [negative] cannabis effect." As a result, they said it was "surprising to find [that marijuana has] such few and small effects" on neurocognitive abilities.

"The small magnitude of the effect ... suggests that cannabis compounds ... should have a good margin of safety from a neurocognitive standpoint," especially in controlled settings, authors concluded.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Feb 22, 2005)

So we know that drugs of all kinds are bad.  SO WHAT. I know of cases where people died from sniffing crazy glue in their socks. SO WHAT. Either we as a society pay for the medical expenses or not should not be part of this discussion. If I hit myself over the head with wet noodle and need to go to the hospital, I know the government will subsidize my stupidity. Thats not the point of the legalization of drugs. It comes down to personal rights. 

Do I, or do I not have the right to eat, drink, smoke, inject whatever I want in the privacy of my own home? Granted, public use is a matter for public debate, but what I do in my home is NONE OF ANYONES BUSINESS. Not shouting, just emphasizing. If I feel like shooting hot glue down my femoral artery, I should feel free to follow it up with Draino, or LSD. Same effect.

We have already begun the process of of having our big flat screens become 2 way monitors for Big Brother. Now that we have legislated what I can and cant to in my home, how far are we willing to let that proceed. Trans fats are bad for you, hence we should make them illegal. Salt, sugar.. caffine. where do we stop the legislation of health?

Everyone knows the drug war is a failure.
Everyone knows the drug war cannot be won.
Not everyone is willing to admit it. 
The government cant announce that billions of dollars and thousands of lives were wasted.
The soldiers on front lines cant admit defeat.
The drug war was another Vietnam. We sent our soldiers/police to fight a war we had no intention of winning, because we knew that a demand will foster a supply, but we also needed something to get our politicians elected.


----------



## kid (Feb 22, 2005)

Preach on gray.  I don't want to be told what to do, and neither does anyone else.  Big brother could be very real someday if people keep conforming to his every twist and bend of the law.  Its not for anyone to say what can be done or not done to themself besides their selves.


----------



## Melissa426 (Feb 22, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Why the personal attack against "Kid?"
> 
> 
> Steve


This is nothing personal against "Kid."

But, a cop who is doing his job stops four people and confiscates their pot.
The four people get off with "a slap on the wrist."
What did Kid expect to happen, that the cops are gonna give the pot back?
No, instead he says the "cops stole our stash and smoked it."
Twice, he said the cops "stole" it. 

I think that is a ridiculous statement.
It's insulting to all LEO's that I know.
If he seriously believes that, then the pot did more brain damage than he realizes.
If it was meant to be a joke, it went straight over my head.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Ray (Feb 22, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> Do I, or do I not have the right to eat, drink, smoke, inject whatever I want in the privacy of my own home?


Apparently not.  There are more things than just weed that are illegal and that people can debate about.  



			
				Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> ... but what I do in my home is NONE OF ANYONES BUSINESS. Not shouting, just emphasizing. If I feel like shooting hot glue down my femoral artery, I should feel free to follow it up with Draino, or LSD.


Draino is not designed for this purpose.  And society may lock you up for hurting yourself.  How far should society go in "protecting" us is an awfully good question and one that we'll probably never all agree on.


----------



## Ray (Feb 22, 2005)

Schtankybampo said:
			
		

> Go ahead, call me heartless, but if....


I would never call you heartless.


----------



## Rynocerous (Feb 22, 2005)

Well I've been out of the loop for a while and it looks as though everyone is having a good time(slight sarcasm). I notice that there is a lot of "Pot is OK", rebuted with "No pot is the Devil" type arguments. To be honest this can go back and forth til we are all blue in the face and nothing will be solved. As sung in an "Alice and Chains" song, "You can't understand a users mind...You can try with your books and degrees" is bang on. Those who have never smoked weed just don't get it. I am going to put myself on the chopping block here and say YES! I SMOKE WEED! I am a very competent, intellegent person, who has a 149 IQ score. I smoked weed religiously before I joined the Army, and quit cold turkey in order to join. I am now out of the military, and I smoke weed again. Does this make me an addict? Does this make me the devil? Does this mean I am a stupid human being? I don't think so!!! I feel that if you don't believe in smoking weed, hey good for you! If you chose to smoke, hey good for you! That is what I love about this country, you are entitled to believe what you want. That is no reason to have snarly remarks back and forth between each other. This is supposed to be a debate on the legalization of marijuana, not a venue for personal attacks. Why can't we all just get along and have a nice fun debate.


Cheers,

Rynocerous


----------



## MissTwisties (Feb 22, 2005)

Against it 100%. That would be like saying to our kids "It is ok to smoke mari because it is legal". I am against drugs and I will never tolerate them. Specially not under my roof, ever. My dad started off with pot, then coke, then worse...mixed with being alcoholic. Drugs destroy people, families, children, etc. and should never be legalized. PERIOD. And for your info, I tried smoking hash once with knifes, this was one of the day in my life where I felt I was doing the stupidiest thing ever, and walked away from those "friends" I was with.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 22, 2005)

Rhino...

Thats actually OK with me. Im sure your an "OK Guy". However do you, in the event some cop pulls you over and sees a joint in your ashtray, think you should be exempt from the law as it stands right now?

Thats pretty much my "problem" with the discussion. Go ahead and, debate, write letters, protest, be an activist for marijuana law reform...I believe the laws should be reviewed, if your state is handing out jail time for simple possession (fine them...If they can afford the pot they can afford the fine when they are dumb enough to get caught IMO). However dont be shocked, suprised and outraged if you get arrested for "blowing smoke in a cops face" (Cheech and Chong refrence there).


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 22, 2005)

MissTwisties said:
			
		

> Against it 100%. That would be like saying to our kids "It is ok to smoke mari because it is legal". I am against drugs and I will never tolerate them. Specially not under my roof, ever. My dad started off with pot, then coke, then worse...mixed with being alcoholic. Drugs destroy people, families, children, etc. and should never be legalized. PERIOD. And for your info, I tried smoking hash once with knifes, this was one of the day in my life where I felt I was doing the stupidiest thing ever, and walked away from those "friends" I was with.



You obviously don't like drugs, but a lot of people do and maintain regular lifestyles. Do you get to mandate their behavior? You're "against" drugs, but does your stance on maintaining their illegality keep it from your kids? One thing that's been discussed way back on this thread is the effectiveness of the drug war and legalization vs. use. I've stated a number of times that it was easier for me to access and buy marijuana as a teenager than alcohol because the black market doesn't check IDs, and liquor stores do. Well, most of them. If drugs were legalized, they could be more properly regulated as long as they were _just_ cheaper than what the black market could offer, and revenue from taxes and all the returned revenue from non-violent pot (or drug)-related incarceration could be used for treatment--though I've heard of very few people needing treatment for marijuana use. 

I agree, drugs can be destructive to society--as are anti-drug wars. But it is the land of the free. What we do with our bodies and brains should be up to us, no?


----------



## Tgace (Feb 22, 2005)

The problem then is why do we all have to pay to pick up the pieces (i.e. social programs for drug rehab, medical expenses, etc.) for those people when their "doing what they want with their bodies" lands them in physical trouble??

Perhaps the solution isnt jail, but there should be some type of penalty when your "freedom" places a burden on the rest of society who isnt taking the drug....


----------



## MissTwisties (Feb 22, 2005)

Exactly. People who don't do drugs still have to pay for those who do. When I see my insurance rates go up like a rocket, and I see on my policy that I'm covered for "drug abuse/detox/outpatient substance abuse" it makes me sick to think that part of the premiums we pay every month is because of that bullsh**. There shouldn't be any coverage for substance abuse on health insurance policies, it should be paid by the drug addict if he want to go in detox. You "willfully" (emphasis on the word willfully here) abuse your body and your health? Well other insured people shouldn't have to be forced to pay part of their monthly premiums for substance abuse when they don't even use drugs.


----------



## Rynocerous (Feb 22, 2005)

MissTwisties said:
			
		

> Against it 100% .


Which you are entitled to believe.




> That would be like saying to our kids "It is ok to smoke mari because it is legal".


As stated in early arguments there should be an age restriction if it is legalized.



> I am against drugs and I will never tolerate them. Specially not under my roof, ever.


Hey I don't blame you, when I have kids there will be no illegal substaces in my house. Now if marijuana were legal and my son or daughter were of age, that would be a different story.


> Drugs destroy people, families, children, etc. and should never be legalized. PERIOD.


Like in the gun control issue, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Drugs don't destroy people, families, children. People do these things.



> And for your info, I tried smoking hash once with knifes, this was one of the day in my life where I felt I was doing the stupidiest thing ever, and walked away from those "friends" I was with.


You don't have to explain for my information either. What you do, and what you believe is your RIGHT! Nothing that I say or do can take that from you. You don't have to prove anything to anyone, just remember that.

Cheers, 

Rynocerous


----------



## Rynocerous (Feb 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The problem then is why do we all have to pay to pick up the pieces (i.e. social programs for drug rehab, medical expenses, etc.) for those people when their "doing what they want with their bodies" lands them in physical trouble??
> 
> Perhaps the solution isnt jail, but there should be some type of penalty when your "freedom" places a burden on the rest of society who isnt taking the drug....


Maybe we should imply a health tax on all legal marijuana purchases that goes into a fun which only used for people that are suffering from something directly related to marijuana. Heck we could even do this with cigarettes, and booze. 

Ryno,


----------



## Tgace (Feb 22, 2005)

Not a bad idea......although taxes never seem to be able to be kept in specific funds. They always seem to wind up paying for something else...an idea though.

Where do "sin taxes" on tobacco and alcohol go now? Anybody know?


----------



## Deuce (Feb 22, 2005)

I would like to see the numbers of how many people are in drug programs or detox because of marijuana vs. alcohol. Alcohol is legal and IMO ruins many more lives, is more addictive, and is worse for your body than marijuana. I'm not saying that either are good or should be acceptable, but should be classified into the same category.

I think the big issue is, if booze is legal than why not pot?


----------



## MissTwisties (Feb 22, 2005)

I was not specifically giving an explanation to you, or anyone else in particular in here. It was just a general statement because of a sentence I readed stating "if you haven't tried it don't speak" or something like that.  



			
				Rynocerous said:
			
		

> You don't have to explain for my information either. What you do, and what you believe is your RIGHT! Nothing that I say or do can take that from you. You don't have to prove anything to anyone, just remember that.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rynocerous


----------



## MissTwisties (Feb 22, 2005)

You are right about that. Alcohol destroy life too. I know. And I can see the point here saying that if most people can have only one or a few drinks one evening without abusing it, once in a while...why can't people use pot once in a while too if they don't abuse it either..this is a rough debate. 

My guess is I would be upset if one of my kids smoked pot. But I could survive that a lot more than if they did hard drugs such as coke and what not.  I would be as upset if they were getting drunk in parties every weekend. 



			
				Deuce said:
			
		

> I would like to see the numbers of how many people are in drug programs or detox because of marijuana vs. alcohol. Alcohol is legal and IMO ruins many more lives, is more addictive, and is worse for your body than marijuana. I'm not saying that either are good or should be acceptable, but should be classified into the same category.
> 
> I think the big issue is, if booze is legal than why not pot?


----------



## Rynocerous (Feb 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Not a bad idea......although taxes never seem to be able to be kept in specific funds. They always seem to wind up paying for something else...an idea though.
> 
> Where do "sin taxes" on tobacco and alcohol go now? Anybody know?


You know what, that is a very good question!!! Especially up here in Canada where a 12 pack of beer will cost you $21.50, and a pack of smokes will run you a whopping 10-12 dollars. 

Cheers,

Rynocerous


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The problem then is why do we all have to pay to pick up the pieces (i.e. social programs for drug rehab, medical expenses, etc.) for those people when their "doing what they want with their bodies" lands them in physical trouble??
> 
> Perhaps the solution isnt jail, but there should be some type of penalty when your "freedom" places a burden on the rest of society who isnt taking the drug....



I agree, when someone commits a crime on drugs they should be charged with that crime. If the drugs were definitely a factor toward committing that crime, then they should be treated accordingly. Remove the costs of prosecuting, interdicting smuggling and incarcerating drug crimes, tack on the taxes produced form legal intoxicant sales, and there's a hell of a lot of money for treatment programs. Hell, we could go to Mars on that. And by the way, we're already paying for those programs one way or another.


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 22, 2005)

MissTwisties said:
			
		

> Exactly. People who don't do drugs still have to pay for those who do. When I see my insurance rates go up like a rocket, and I see on my policy that I'm covered for "drug abuse/detox/outpatient substance abuse" it makes me sick to think that part of the premiums we pay every month is because of that bullsh**. There shouldn't be any coverage for substance abuse on health insurance policies, it should be paid by the drug addict if he want to go in detox. You "willfully" (emphasis on the word willfully here) abuse your body and your health? Well other insured people shouldn't have to be forced to pay part of their monthly premiums for substance abuse when they don't even use drugs.



You're a motorcycle rider, as am I. Everyone pays a little more on their auto insurance to cover our demographic's high levels of medical costs. You take an extra risk by traveling on two wheels, and others get to offset that cost. Living in a society, we all share costs. My son with Asperger's gets more of a slice of the school budget, you might get a small business loan courtesy of my taxes. 

I look at addiction as a medical and societal issue. Not a criminal one. Criminalizing only compounds the problem by adding a layer of expense and violence.


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Not a bad idea......although taxes never seem to be able to be kept in specific funds. They always seem to wind up paying for something else...an idea though.
> 
> Where do "sin taxes" on tobacco and alcohol go now? Anybody know?



Tobacco taxes in CO go to anti-smoking advertisement, though with the increased revenue they're talking about it going to cessation and treatment. 

Don't know where the alcohol taxes go...


----------



## MissTwisties (Feb 22, 2005)

Unfortunatly that is also true. But I believe it is because of squids that our car/bike insurance is at a high cost. I ride a sportbike, not a cruiser. Sportbikes are well reputated for doing high speeds, driving to endanger, stunting, etc...but not all sportbike riders do these things. The highest speed I do on highways is no more than 90 miles an hour (rarely and when there is no traffic), with an average of more or less 75 miles an hour. I ride carefully for many reasons; mom of 2 kids, I value life and I simply ride to enjoy the fresh air/scenery/freedom....not for speed. So yes, it also upset me to know that insurance rates are so high because of people who don't know how to ride/drive.





			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> You're a motorcycle rider, as am I. Everyone pays a little more on their auto insurance to cover our demographic's high levels of medical costs. You take an extra risk by traveling on two wheels, and others get to offset that cost. Living in a society, we all share costs. My son with Asperger's gets more of a slice of the school budget, you might get a small business loan courtesy of my taxes.
> 
> I look at addiction as a medical and societal issue. Not a criminal one. Criminalizing only compounds the problem by adding a layer of expense and violence.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 23, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> This is nothing personal against "Kid."
> 
> But, a cop who is doing his job stops four people and confiscates their pot.
> The four people get off with "a slap on the wrist."
> ...




Whether you think his post ridiculous or not is beside the point.  Attack his reasoning methods, not him personally.  Your post called into question his level of intelligence and suggested he was possibly brain damaged.  

Your line of reasoning is thus:

"Kid smoked pot.
Kid's allegation towards the LEO's is ridiculous.
Ergo Kid must have brain damaged himself with pot."

Then how am I not correct in following a similar line of flawed logic in arriving at the assumption that you must have brain damaged yourself falling on your head as a child?  I do NOT think this is the case.  Your logic is merely flawed in that your premises don't support your conclusion.  Further your conclusion is debatable given current research into marijuana's impact on cognition.*

Regardless; if I were to argue your reasoning was due to you hitting your head as a child it, would be a personal attack little different from that you directed towards Kid.  An ad hominem is an ad hominem.  Saying it isn't "personal" doesn't relieve the insult.

Now, you've called me on such behavior before, and correctly.  I've appreciated it.  Now its your turn.  

I would suggest either reconsidering your approach or dropping the "peace" signature with which you end your posts and whose symbol often graces your avatar.  To attack "Kid" in this manner with such an icon and phrase representing you seems hypocritical.

Regards,


Steve


*Further your conclusion is debatable given current research into marijuana's impact on cognition.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 23, 2005)

*-Mod. Note. -
  Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

  -shesulsa
  -MT Moderator-*


----------



## Melissa426 (Feb 23, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Kid's allegation towards the LEO's is ridiculous.
> Ergo Kid must have brain damaged himself with pot."
> 
> Now its your turn.


Do I seriously believe Kid is literally brain damaged? No. Nor do I believe that of anyone else who is a prior or current user (including members of my family)  expecially people at MT, none of whom I really know.. 

Sometimes when I post, a sarcastic response is what enters my brain. Is sarcasm a way to respond respectfully to someone else's post? No.

I hope I have never implied that anyone here is stupid, though I may disagree with them ion certain principle. 
What I should has asked was if Kid really truly believed what he said about the cop stealing his marijuana and why he believed that.

If Kid reads this, I would love to hear his opinion and I promise  to  respond more appropriately and not let my emotions get the best of me, If that is acceptable.

Peace (not to resort to name-calling, insults, and belittling others.... from both sides of the argument)
Melissa


----------



## Ray (Feb 23, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Sometimes when I post, a sarcastic response is what enters my brain. Is sarcasm a way to respond respectfully to someone else's post? No....
> 
> What I should has asked was if Kid really truly believed what he said about the cop stealing his marijuana and why he believed that.


That was very big of you to post that response.

Personally, I have never seen smoking pot raise anyone's IQ test results.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 23, 2005)

MissTwisties in bold:

*Against it 100%. That would be like saying to our kids "It is ok to smoke mari because it is legal". * 

No.  We'd be saying "It is legal for adults to use marijuana."  Legalizing alcohol in 1933 after the repeal of prohibition in no way told children it was "okay to drink alcohol because it is legal."  We do not condone children smoking cigarettes nor driving cars, yet those are legal too.

*I am against drugs and I will never tolerate them. Specially not under my roof, ever. My dad started off with pot, then coke, then worse...mixed with being alcoholic. Drugs destroy people, families, children, etc. and should never be legalized. * 

More specifically; addictions destroy families.  My parents, both alcoholics (and my mother a fairly violent one), managed to screw up our household using only alcohol.  No cocaine came into play, no meth, no speed or barbituates or any other intoxicant other than tobacco.  And it was all perfectly legal.

One can outlaw drugs, but one can not outlaw an addiction...and the addiction will find its way past any law, as we well know.  To penalize an addict with prison and then sermonize how drugs ruin lives is contradictory, as the latter act is used to justify the former--and the former (prison) ruins lives.  

Not tolerating them under your roof is perfectly acceptable.  If your child were facing up to five years imprisonment for possession of an ounce of pot, would you assist the prosecutor in putting him away?  As he or she were carted off, would you refrain from a motherly "serves you right?"  Or would that not be so motherly?

*Drugs destroy people, families, children, etc. and should never be legalized. PERIOD. * 

But not necessarily so with marijuana.  Nor, for that matter, alcohol.  _Most _ people who use marijuana outgrow it and move on to never use it again.  _Most_ people who drink alcohol drink it all their lives and do so without damage to them or their family...though the addiction rate for alcohol is far greater than marijuana and the social and economic impact far more severe.  The facts are clear:  Marijuana is simply not as harmful as people attempt to portray it.  To include it under an umbrella categorization of "drugs" is an unfair and unreasonable generalization.

*People who don't do drugs still have to pay for those who do. When I see my insurance rates go up like a rocket, and I see on my policy that I'm covered for "drug abuse/detox/outpatient substance abuse" it makes me sick to think that part of the premiums we pay every month is because of that bullsh**. * 

Your insurance rates are raised for a number of reasons, and are computed by actuaries who specialize in that field.  If addictions were that great of a hazard, they wouldn't provide coverage at all, most likely.

*There shouldn't be any coverage for substance abuse on health insurance policies, it should be paid by the drug addict if he want to go in detox.*

As it is now, the uninsured and poor have few resources for treatment.  Under your plan the middle class would have fewer treatment options. 

*You "willfully" (emphasis on the word willfully here) abuse your body and your health? Well other insured people shouldn't have to be forced to pay part of their monthly premiums for substance abuse when they don't even use drugs.*

One could say the same for those who don't wear a motorcycle helmet or a seatbelt, or who eat too much salt and fat.  If you don't like the policy, you're free to change it in protest, I suppose, and find a cheaper policy that doesn't offer substance abuse treatment.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 23, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Personally, I have never seen smoking pot raise anyone's IQ test results.


Are you suggesting that you've studied this comprehensively?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 23, 2005)

Melissa in bold:

*Do I seriously believe Kid is literally brain damaged? No. Nor do I believe that of anyone else who is a prior or current user (including members of my family)  expecially people at MT, none of whom I really know.. 

Sometimes when I post, a sarcastic response is what enters my brain. Is sarcasm a way to respond respectfully to someone else's post? No.

I hope I have never implied that anyone here is stupid, though I may disagree with them ion certain principle. 
What I should has asked was if Kid really truly believed what he said about the cop stealing his marijuana and why he believed that.

If Kid reads this, I would love to hear his opinion and I promise  to  respond more appropriately and not let my emotions get the best of me, If that is acceptable.

Peace (not to resort to name-calling, insults, and belittling others.... from both sides of the argument)
Melissa*


Gracefully put.  Kudos for that.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ray (Feb 23, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that you've studied this comprehensively?


The statement "Personally, I never seen smoking pot raise anyone's IQ test results" seems simple enough.  Did I say "After 30 years of comprehensive study, I have never seen an individual's IQ test result increase due to inhalation of marijuana"?  

It was a non-peer reviewed statement.  Nevertheless, it is a true statement:  I have never seen anyone get smarter from smoking dope.

Do you have credible information that I have seen anyone get more intelligent smoking dope?

Do you have credible information that smoking dope makes people smarter?  Do you have credible information that smoking dope doesn't?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 23, 2005)

Ray in bold:

*Personally, I have never seen smoking pot raise anyone's IQ test results.*

Harrison Pope hasn't seen it hurt it, either:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/10.11/marijuana.html

Note Pope also says that reports indicate that users report a negative social effect from using.  This could lead to so many users walking away from the drug after a period of regular use.

The results of the studies are mixed. 


Regards,


Steve


----------



## kid (Feb 23, 2005)

Honestly none of us truly beleived they had stolen it and smoked it themselves. That was actually brough up in a latter pot smoking session whith my pals and we were all rolling on the floor in laughter. We actually thout a few differnt thing and i think hard head even mentioned a few thaat seem very likly to have happend. I personaly think the driver ratted someone out. Never did trust that one, seemed shady. It may not be funny for you but if you ever get stoned you will know what i'm talkin about. And for all tthe younger people reading this thread if you decide to use any mind altering chemicals may it be coffee, marijuana, or alcohol, always use in moderation and don't do dumb things like drive all messed up. other than that have fun. You know what i dont understand though is why all you people that are opposed to legalize mj want to take away rights that our fore fathers faught and gave their lives for. These family members of yours that smoke doobies, are they still accepted as people in your family or do they hang out in the basement cause people like you shame them into thinking they don't belong? Are they the ones that the whole family gossips about when they aren't their? Are they the ones who the rest of the family thinks needs help cause he/she is differnt? Get a hold of yourself and treat them like you want to be treated and don't put them below you it will cause more rebellion.  These are the things that rune families.  Causes distress throughout the wholw family and its also a sign of weakness.  the chain is only as strong as the weakest link.  (refaining from sayng "You are.... theweakestlink goodby" didn't work)I'm getting off that. marijuana is not that bad. mean people are bad. how can something that feels good be bad when its not endagering others? how can mean people be good when the talk smack to someonthey don't know?

Just a few questions i have.

Shouldn't knock it if you havn't done it. That goes for everyone even me.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 23, 2005)

Not for or Against, just adding some Info:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html



> Scientists have learned a great deal about how THC acts in the brain to produce its many effects. When someone smokes marijuana, THC rapidly passes from the lungs into the bloodstream, which carries the chemical to organs throughout the body, including the brain.
> 
> In the brain, THC connects to specific sites called cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement(5).
> 
> ...


I need some Vodka.


----------



## kid (Feb 23, 2005)

use in moderation.


----------



## Ray (Feb 23, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> use in moderation.


Ahaha...oh wait...you're serious?


----------



## kid (Feb 23, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Ahaha...oh wait...you're serious?


Think about it.


----------



## Rynocerous (Feb 23, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Ahaha...oh wait...you're serious?


You laugh at someone who is willing to use a substance in moderation? I say Kudos KID,it is better than people using it all the time. Or is your outlook based on if your going to do something, do it right? Is there a problem with people drinking in moderation? Wait, no it's legal...We could do that in moderation.

The problem isn't people that use in moderation, it is the people that abuse the substace. Be it booze, smokes, weed, acid, huffing gas, or whatever. If a person is in conrol let him/her do what they want.

Cheers,

Rynocerous


----------



## Darksoul (Feb 23, 2005)

-You know, a very good friend of mine dated a guy a few years ago who said the same thing about drugs harder than pot. Don't knock it till you try it. Well she tried a few different things and landed in some trouble because of it. Who knows how they'll react on any drug, let alone pot. I have another friend who has a chemical imbalance in his brain, he smoked pot on Halloween one year and went crazy for a few hours. Friends had to chase him down just to keep him from hurting himself. I don't need to try pot to understand it. I don't need to understand it to know that, as I've said before, this country isn't mature enough to make it legal. If you can smoke it, and still live a productive life, without screwing up anybodyelse's, hooray for you. Though I would still say you would be better off to spend your time and money on other things.


A---)


----------



## Rynocerous (Feb 23, 2005)

Darksoul said:
			
		

> If you can smoke it, and still live a productive life, without screwing up anybodyelse's, hooray for you. Though I would still say you would be better off to spend your time and money on other things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Melissa426 (Feb 23, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> . Are they the ones that the whole family gossips about when they aren't their?


No, but since you ask ( and this is only minimally pertinent to the conversation) we talk about my wicked witch of a step-mother who lives with my father in the Aloha state.
This same stepmother was arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana ,on a military base. My father's employer, the US Army, did not look kindly on this incident. He was a Lt Col at that time, retired a full Colonel.

Come to think of it, I'd probably like her better if she stayed stoned.
OK, I change my mind. Make it legal.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 23, 2005)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> You are free to say that, but I am free to live my life anyway I like, and really don't need lectures from anyone on how to live my life. I have terrible back pains from a boched jump in the army, and the only thing that truly relieves my pain is marijuana used in moderation. One little puff a night and I am able to sleep without waking up ten times a night in pain. I don't know what you think, but I deem that an excellent thing to spend my time and money on.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Ryan


Ah, c'mon man... thats what Prescription Narcotics are for... 

Cuz, ya know, they must be safer...


----------



## Rynocerous (Feb 23, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Ah, c'mon man... thats what Prescription Narcotics are for...
> 
> Cuz, ya know, they must be safer...


:rofl: 


:barf: Yeah but those make me naucious, and makes me feel hungover in the morning, whereas weed does not. Oh, and by the way thanks for the laugh Mellissa.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Feb 23, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The problem then is why do we all have to pay to pick up the pieces (i.e. social programs for drug rehab, medical expenses, etc.) for those people when their "doing what they want with their bodies" lands them in physical trouble??
> 
> Perhaps the solution isnt jail, but there should be some type of penalty when your "freedom" places a burden on the rest of society who isnt taking the drug....


Totally agreed. The only half way good reason for making drugs illegal is because the welfare state in which we live forces the monetary burden on the rest of us. We know the junky will never repay it so putting them further in debt is not an effective deterrent. The only thing left for a society to use is the criminal justice system. 

If we were to legalize narcotics and either force the families/estate of the users to pay the bills or we limit the amount fo treatment given.

It sounds heartless, but so is robbing John Q. Citizen of his hard earned money to pay for someone elses habit.


----------



## MissTwisties (Feb 23, 2005)

HardheadJarhead...a lot of what you said make sense. But you know, I have lived all young life, in a house with drugs and alcohol, and being my parents punching bag on a daily basis. I still suffer today consequences of all that non sense they made me endured...I have a big lack of self-confidence, I feel like I'm a nobody sometimes, and I'm an emotionnal person who cries for sad and happy things (cry when I watch a movie, etc.). It makes me sick to be so sensitive to things. I'm a hopeless romantic and dreamer, and I ended up with a husband who's not romantic at all and do not give me so much attention. Some days...I hate being who I am because I wish I could have been more. I have a lot of bad lucks still, and it doesn't help.

 I ended up never using drugs, I drink only rarely when there is an occasion, I tell my kids every single day taht I love them and that I'm proud of them, something I NEVER heard from my parents when I was younger. That's why drugs is such a sensitive spot for me. I've seen way too many bad things in my past.


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 23, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> Totally agreed. The only half way good reason for making drugs illegal is because the welfare state in which we live forces the monetary burden on the rest of us. We know the junky will never repay it so putting them further in debt is not an effective deterrent. The only thing left for a society to use is the criminal justice system.
> 
> If we were to legalize narcotics and either force the families/estate of the users to pay the bills or we limit the amount fo treatment given.
> 
> It sounds heartless, but so is robbing John Q. Citizen of his hard earned money to pay for someone elses habit.



Jail ain't free.


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Feb 23, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Jail ain't free.


True. The burden is on us and that aint fair. I'm all for legalization, and put the burden on those who use, not those who work.


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 23, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> True. The burden is on us and that aint fair. I'm all for legalization, and put the burden on those who use, not those who work.



I agree. Take the money currently used for the drug war including foreign payoffs, police, government agencies, prisons, plus add on sin taxes for the intoxicants and that should cover just about damn near anything. And to clarify, those who use and those who work are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Feb 23, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> And to clarify, those who use and those who work are not mutually exclusive.


True, but I am referring to people like myself, and many others here who work and dont use.


----------



## kid (Feb 23, 2005)

*Misstwisties in bold:*

*That's why drugs is such a sensitive spot for me. I've seen way too many bad things in my past.*

I can relate to your pain seriously.  I don't discuss it with people i don't know, so just trust me.  We as our parents children have to learn from their mistakes.  Here is where we hold differnt opinions.  You think that the mistake was drugs themselves that caused the pain and suffering, i think that it is the abuse, or legal penalties that cause hardships.

*Darksoul in bold:*

*he smoked pot on Halloween one year and went crazy for a few hours.  Friends had to chase him down just to keep him from hurting himself.*
Use in moderation.  That problem would most likly not have happened if he read the warning lable that alcohol, tobacco, saunas, hot tubs, tellaphones, toasters, microwaves, and all that junk have.  Wait its not legal yet; warning lables havent been printed.  
*this country isn't mature enough to make it legal.*
Give your fellow citezens more credit than that.  And whos to say we aren't mature enough?  You, mom and dad, George Bush, Uncle Sam, Big Brother?  Thats not what America is about comrade.  I turned twenty one awhile ago and became a full fledged mature adult, i make my life decisions.  Not anyone else named above thats my right.  And i will Stand my ground cause thats what Larry Flint would do.

*Mellissa426 in bold:*

* Come to think of it, I'd probably like her better if she stayed stoned.
OK, I change my mind. Make it legal.*
do i detect some sarcasm?  naw i think that if your dad is able to accept her as she is, and if you want to be part of his life you need to start accepting also.  and stop doing this: *we talk about my wicked witch of a step-mother who lives with my father in the Aloha state.   *
Potheads aren't dumb Just like your not dumb.  I can tell when someone doesn't like me and i'm sure you can to.  Now i don't know about you but im not the nicest person in the world to people that dislike me for what they assume.  

*Rynocerous in bold:*

*I say Kudos KID,it is better than people using it all the time.*
Thanks Ryn i'm glad you understand.

 and *jarhead* rocks


----------



## kid (Feb 23, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> True, but I am referring to people like myself, and many others here who work and dont use.


I work, go to school, and used.  I don't anymore but i would like to know that i could if i wanted to and not be paranoid cause a law was being broken.  i would rather have a serious conversation about mating rituals of butterflis or some useless info like that.  Now thats funny.


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Feb 24, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> I work, go to school, and used. I don't anymore but i would like to know that i could if i wanted to and not be paranoid cause a law was being broken. i would rather have a serious conversation about mating rituals of butterflis or some useless info like that. Now thats funny.


I dont care if you use or not. It should be legal. If you wanna pump hot glue into your veins and follow up with Draino, I dont care. 

Where I do get my panties in a bunch is when some junky ODs and gets taken to the county hospital where he gets $50k worth of treatment to save him. It would be nice to save him, but its his mistake, not mine and not John Q Citizen's. Whey should the public pay for it? I might even compromise a little. We save him once, but tattoo DNR on his chest and make him sign the forms after he "recovers". 

Your rights end at my door.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 24, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> Where I do get my panties in a bunch is when some junky ODs and gets taken to the county hospital where he gets $50k worth of treatment to save him.


Yes, that is an unnecesary burden on society.  Fortunately, the instances of overdosing on marijuana are very, very rare.  Certainly much less frequent than alcohol.


----------



## Rynocerous (Feb 24, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> Where I do get my panties in a bunch is when some junky ODs and gets taken to the county hospital where he gets $50k worth of treatment to save him. It would be nice to save him, but its his mistake, not mine and not John Q Citizen's. Whey should the public pay for it?


You ask a very legitimate questoin here Gray Phoenix. I am currently taking a sociolgy class in university and had many heated debates about topics like this. There a many things that seperate us from animals such as division of labour, sharing food, but the big one is caring for those in need of help. It is in our nature to assist humans in need of help. Be it detox, a heart transplant, a liver transplant, a cast, or whatever the case may be. How many people have needed a heart transplant, or surgery because their diet was so poor that it clogged an artery in their heart. How many people are on respitory machines because they smoked their whole life. How many people had a liver transplant because they were an alchoholic, or simply drank to much. These are going to be problems until the end of time, and to say "no you don't get help" is just not in our nature. Could anyone here on this forum honestly say that if they were qualified to help an OD victim they would stand by and let that person die because what the victim was doing is illegal. I sure hope not. I guess what I'm getting at is people make bad choices, and the rest of the human race is here to help out when times get rough. Now don't get me wrong, this isn't a reason to go out and snort coke, and eat eighteen cheese burgers a day. I'm just pointing out that we are helping these people now, and we will still help them if it is legalized.

Cheers,

Rynocerous


----------



## Schtankybampo (Feb 24, 2005)

Ok, granted, but let's have the profits from the government-legalized sales of these substances pay for thier treatment. 

Look, I'm not going to idly stand by and let someone die because what they have done was "illegal" Legality has nothing to do with it, in my opinion. What disheartens me is that we "save" the same people over and over and over. Legal or illegal, we're still going to have to save them. John Q. Junkie is going to shoot up; the only difference here is, does he do it in an alley or sitting at a streetside cafe'?

Having said that, no, the instances of hospitalization for abuse of MJ are slim, but don't you think that comfort with MJ leads to the experimentation of harder substances? 


M


----------



## Rynocerous (Feb 24, 2005)

Schtankybampo said:
			
		

> Ok, granted, but let's have the profits from the government-legalized sales of these substances pay for thier treatment.
> 
> Look, I'm not going to idly stand by and let someone die because what they have done was "illegal" Legality has nothing to do with it, in my opinion. What disheartens me is that we "save" the same people over and over and over. Legal or illegal, we're still going to have to save them. John Q. Junkie is going to shoot up; the only difference here is, does he do it in an alley or sitting at a streetside cafe'?
> 
> ...


Absolutly not...

Ryno


----------



## Deuce (Feb 24, 2005)

Schtankybampo said:
			
		

> Having said that, no, the instances of hospitalization for abuse of MJ are slim, but don't you think that comfort with MJ leads to the experimentation of harder substances?
> M


That all depends on the person and their environment. I have smoked MJ for years (not any more though) and have never tried anything harder. I'm not addicted nor am I brain dead. I was smart about it though. I did my research before I tried it, and deemed it to be harmless, non-addictive and a potentially good time. I was right based on my personal experiences. I never tried harder drugs because I knew they were extremely addictive, deadly and could cause brain damage. But some people just don't think things though and cause themselves grief. It's not going to stop regardless of what laws are in enforcement.

Back to the weed leading to harder drugs. As was mentioned before in this thread, I think it's more about the people you hang out with, rather than the actual MJ that influences trying other drugs. Pot is currently illegal, and when you involve yourself in the uderground drug scene in order to obtain pot, you are exposed to many other illegal drugs and activities. If weed were legal, pot smokers would be less likely exposed to harder drugs, out of sight, out of mind, less chance of trying them. 

There are many hard core potheads out there that may not be tempted by other drugs if mary-jane was legal. This could potentially save money on detox, hospital costs, drug related crimes, hard drug addictions, etc., not to mention the revenue of pot sales.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 24, 2005)

Seriously, now.  Alcohol, legalized tobacco and cane sugar (even separately) kill more people that pot does.  Pot just is not the gateway drug it has been made out to be.  Many many many people smoke pot, but many fewer actually move on to harder substances and would probably have tried the harder substances whether or not they had tried pot first.  I seem to remember a report (I'll have to try to dig it up) that showed hard drug addicts actually tried hard drugs first, not marijuana.


----------



## kid (Feb 24, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> Pot is currently illegal, and when you involve yourself in the uderground drug scene in order to obtain pot, you are exposed to many other illegal drugs and activities. If weed were legal, pot smokers would be less likely exposed to harder drugs, out of sight, out of mind, less chance of trying them.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Well said deuce.  Think about it like this financially if we take away pot from dealers that is a major percent of income for them.  Less total income means less amount that can be invested back into their buissness.  So other drugs will be harder to find.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 24, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Many many many people smoke pot, but many fewer actually move on to harder substances and would probably have tried the harder substances whether or not they had tried pot first.  I seem to remember a report (I'll have to try to dig it up) that showed hard drug addicts actually tried hard drugs first, not marijuana.



Given that pot is the most widely used illicit drug, it is often the first one tried out...it is then no surprise that hard drug users then report dope was the first drug they tried.

Some other points:  Kids start smoking cigarettes and drinking at earlier ages than when they experiment with marijuana.  Perhaps THEY are the gateway drug?  That's born out in the following quote from the 1999 Federal National Household Survey of Drug Abuse: 

_"The rate of past month illicit drug use among youths was higher among those that were currently using cigarettes or alcohol, compared with youths not using cigarettes or alcohol. In 1999, 5.6 percent of youth nonsmokers used illicit drugs, while among youths who used cigarettes, the rate of past month illicit drug use was 41.1 percent. The rate of illicit drug use was also associated with the level of alcohol use. Among youths who were heavy drinkers in 1999, 66.7 percent were also current illicit drug users. Among nondrinkers, only 5.5 percent were current illicit drug users."_

The "Gateway Theory" is well debunked on the following site:

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/gatewayt.htm


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Schtankybampo (Feb 24, 2005)

Posted by Kid:

"Well said deuce. Think about it like this financially if we take away pot from dealers that is a major percent of income for them. Less total income means less amount that can be invested back into their buissness. So other drugs will be harder to find."

I'm afraid that's a somewhat faulty economic theory. At least with what I have noticed in terms of the inner-city problems. When you want to find pot, you find a pot dealer. If you're looking for Meth, you find the Meth Guy. Taking money out of the pockets of the MJ dealers by making it legal and freely availble at say, 7-11 is going to force them to find other areas of employment. Who here thinks they are going to go apply at Burger-King? Not me. 

You can't bolster your defense of your own usage by hiding behind economic principles. Don't defend it. I've never used, never will. But I agree with the majority here that making it legal is coming, and we'd better decide how we feel about that. Use, don't use. It's your body, it's your choice.

Just please stop breathing smoke of ANY kind into my space, please. 


M


----------



## kid (Feb 24, 2005)

Those are the smaller dealers.  I'm not talking about the guys way on top. more the guys in middle who move a couple puonds a month they deal in other stuff also.  I used to know some of these guys.  You would go and pick up some pot and be offered acid and coke and mushrooms.  Im not talking personal amounts but amounts that your local dealer has.  thats why if you want something go to him and he will ask his guy.


----------



## ginshun (Feb 24, 2005)

I am just going to chime in and say that I think having pot illegal causes more problems than it solves.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 24, 2005)

*Schtankybampo in bold:

Posted by Kid:

"Well said deuce. Think about it like this financially if we take away pot from dealers that is a major percent of income for them. Less total income means less amount that can be invested back into their buissness. So other drugs will be harder to find."*

*I'm afraid that's a somewhat faulty economic theory. At least with what I have noticed in terms of the inner-city problems. When you want to find pot, you find a pot dealer. If you're looking for Meth, you find the Meth Guy. Taking money out of the pockets of the MJ dealers by making it legal and freely availble at say, 7-11 is going to force them to find other areas of employment.* 

Perhaps not quite so faulty:

"...experience with and subsequent access to cannabis use may provide individuals with access to other drugs as they come into contact with drug dealers. This argument provided a strong impetus for the Netherlands to effectively decriminalize cannabis use in an attempt to separate cannabis from the hard drug market. _This strategy may have been partially successful as rates of cocaine use among those who have used cannabis are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States_." 

Lynskey, Michael T., PhD, et al., "Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 4, January 22/29, 2003, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v289n4/rfull/joc21156.html, last accessed Jan. 31, 2003. 

*You can't bolster your defense of your own usage by hiding behind economic principles. Don't defend it. * 

Sure he can bolster his defense by using economic principles.  Any user can.  They, like anyone else, can own various layers of political opinion.  A user might have a perfectly sincere belief in the economic rationale of legalizing marijuana.   From what I can tell you're assuming he has a dishonest agenda, and he might actually not be dishonest at all.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 25, 2005)

Thank you, Steve.


----------



## Schtankybampo (Feb 25, 2005)

Anyone CAN use any argument that they please to bolster up anyposition that they like, that doesn't mean that it's logical.

First of all, I wasn't intending to imply that I thought anyone had an agenda at all, much less that one was "dishonest"

Your points are good ones, Steve, and I don't refute them, but they deal more with the exposure issues than the economic one that I was addressing. 

Kid, do you think that the friends that you have that are currently dealing a "little bit" of pot now and then are going to get jobs as bank tellers, cashiers, stockbrokers? Or will they find another easy way to supplement thier income? 

I happen to support legalization. Always have. I don't use, never will. But the economic arguments against legalization are far stronger and more compelling that the economic arguments for it. Cross-state commerce in drug traffic, while bringing plenty of income into Californias' coffers, will severly harm surrounding states. Unless the entire country legalizes, California will essentially be separatist at that point, with border checks on all four sides, ocean included. 

http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Spring98/moyers2.html

I support it. It's coming. But the problems associated with it are not going to be argued away. There are pros and cons to every single argument involved here.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 25, 2005)

*First of all, I wasn't intending to imply that I thought anyone had an agenda at all, much less that one was "dishonest"*

I'll accept that, but I hope you can see how easy it is to misconstrue your meaning given the way you wrote that.

*
But the economic arguments against legalization are far stronger and more compelling that the economic arguments for it. Cross-state commerce in drug traffic, while bringing plenty of income into Californias' coffers, will severly harm surrounding states. Unless the entire country legalizes, California will essentially be separatist at that point, with border checks on all four sides, ocean included. * 

A quote from the article:

_One can easily imagine thousands of individuals traveling to the state, buying drugs at a price substantially below their market value in other states and reselling them at home for an enormous profit. _ 

One can easily imagine somebody undercutting that price by growing it themselves...which they're allready doing...or California's licit drugs driving down the price of pot in states farther away than those bordering it.

Nevada grew over 27 million dollars worth of marijuana in 1995. Oregon grew ten times that much with 276 million dollars worth.  Arizona grew 175 million dollars worth of pot.  These are low retail estimates.

California, on the other hand, grew over six billion dollars (yes, that's a BILL-yun) in pot and grows one fourth of the country's market share.  If it is legalized there, they automatically will have the potential for controlling a future legalized pot industry.

California is a trend-setter state.  If it became legal, a number of states would follow with decriminalization at the very least in order to avoid the expenses of increased vigilance.  Some states will get militant (for awhile) with their enforcement.  Others will turn quickly pragmatic and realize it is a lost cause.  Borders are porous, and to have drug dogs at every interstate, every state line on every small road...is simply unachievable given the enormity of California's potential output.  Nevada and Oregon are so tolerant of pot now, they likely won't even try and stop the flow of weed in that direction.

I seriously doubt there will be a hyper vigilance on the part of the states and the feds.  But then, I have no crystal ball.  Not one currently that's working.  Since the start of the Third Age my Palantir simply hasn't been worth a darn.

Interesting, if speculative, article.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Schtankybampo (Feb 25, 2005)

Yeah, it's very speculative. But ya know, everything is and will be speculation until it actually happens and we see what the results are. Time, as always, will tell. 

Enjoyable debate.  Thanks all. Again, if I ruffled any feathers or twisted anyones' boxers, I apologize. 

M


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 26, 2005)

I have a question.  If it is legalized in the US in any form, is that a Federal or State by State decision?  Can the Federal government overrule a decision made by an individual state?  I'm unfamiliar with the actual balance of power down there......


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 26, 2005)

Federal Law always superceded state law.  The federal government can pass a bill that gives the states control over the legalization of controlled substances and when/if they do that, then the states can and will have to make their own laws regarding the control of drugs that were federally controlled to include penalties for possession of drugs, drug paraphenalia, the terms of incarceration, and limits to use and possession and the definition of which drugs are illegal, unless the feds outline that in the statute.

 This is why, when a city or county legalizes marijuana use, the state comes down on the city/county and if a state legalizes it, the feds can come down on the state and would override the state or local law.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> This is why, when a city or county legalizes marijuana use, the state comes down on the city/county and if a state legalizes it, the feds can come down on the state and would override the state or local law.


Thanks, G.  

So, what then do you all see as the likelyhood that the House would ever be able to come to agreement on something like this?  Presumably, this is a decision that they will not leave up to individual States to make, as the potential for inter-State conflict and dissent is certainly very real.  Thoughts?


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 26, 2005)

I tend to agree that interstate cooperation would be difficult and that this could fuel something much bigger than it deserves.  It would be a curious tactic of one or other party to justify actions we don't want to think our government is capable of doing, but some of us think should be done - like, the elimination of blue.

 And to be truthful, the legalization of MJ could very well be divisive enough to bring about the kind of violence we see with the conflict on other things; clinic bombings may turn into head shop bombings, sabotaging farms and suppliers.  Get my drift?

 I think the logical next step for now is to keep it illegal until our current state of politics is changed. If our politics are as bad as I think they are, the relinquishment of the control of substances to the state level would be a set-up for a larger move by the right, which, given recent foreign relations actions, would not surprise me a bit.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Federal Law always superceded state law.


 This is a common misconception.

 The Constitution grants the Federal Government authority only in specific cases, and also specifically states that in all cases not specifically listed in the Constitution, states retain all rights to define their own laws.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 26, 2005)

> The federal government can pass a bill that gives the states control over the legalization of controlled substances and when/if they do that, then the states can and will have to make their own laws regarding the control of drugs that were federally controlled to include penalties for possession of drugs, drug paraphenalia, the terms of incarceration, and limits to use and possession and the definition of which drugs are illegal, unless the feds outline that in the statute.


 I suppose I could have expanded on this comment to define thusly:  The federal government assigns some things to be controlled at state level, but those things which the Feds outline as being under their control are always, indeed, controlled by the Federal government.  

 So, Dan, if a state passes legislation that is contrary to or slightly different from federal legislation on the same issue, the federal legislation will supercede the state legislation on that issue if the feds get involved.  

 If the feds have relinquished legislation of an issue to the state level and have no legislation at the federal level other than to say it has been relinquished to state control, then the feds have no say in the matter unless it is pertinent to a federally-controlled issue. Heh heh heh.


----------



## kid (Feb 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> And to be truthful, the legalization of MJ could very well be divisive enough to bring about the kind of violence we see with the conflict on other things; clinic bombings may turn into head shop bombings, sabotaging farms and suppliers. Get my drift?


these type of people are seriously mentally i'll to be able to justify those means.  they need to cool down maybe get high and contemplate the matter me closely.
lol


----------



## Rynocerous (Feb 26, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> these type of people are seriously mentally i'll to be able to justify those means. they need to cool down maybe get high and contemplate the matter me closely.
> lol


????????????:idunno: ROFLOL, kid did you smoke a little before you contemplated what to write here? Hey man, no hard feelings, you actually made me laugh today which seemed like an impossible task.

Ryan?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 26, 2005)

*Shesulsa in bold:*

*And to be truthful, the legalization of MJ could very well be divisive enough to bring about the kind of violence we see with the conflict on other things; clinic bombings may turn into head shop bombings, sabotaging farms and suppliers.  Get my drift?*

I doubt that it'd go that direction, as marijuana doesn't engender the same emotional friction that abortion does.  Bombing a head shop almost sounds like a redundancy in any case.  Won't the proprieters allready be bombed to begin with?

Sabotaging farms and suppliers...good question.  It might happen, but not to any extent that would be damaging to the overall finances of the operation.  Imagine California with their six billion dollar dope industry.  That's a huge amount of money, and that is a low end estimate.  Damaging those many fields will be difficult...and providing security for them will be fairly cost effective given the amount of money a company will have to spend on such things.


* I think the logical next step for now is to keep it illegal until our current state of politics is changed. If our politics are as bad as I think they are, the relinquishment of the control of substances to the state level would be a set-up for a larger move by the right, which, given recent foreign relations actions, would not surprise me a bit.*

I don't see how they can fight a drug war and a war overseas.  The government is allready strapped for cash.  Further, the mood throughout the US is growing increasingly tolerant towards marijuana after a low point awhile back that corresponds with the Drug War.

Also interesting is how a survey taken by AARP (American Association of Retired People) found that roughly three out of four thought marijuana ought to be allowed for medical use...even though these older people thought it addictive.  These people are sympathetic to pain because they have it...daily.  I think they're more tolerant of the notion of letting a person have their addiction if it means they get hooked.

Also interesting...15% of those 60-69 had tried weed.  Old stoners.  Go figure.

Other attitudes:  Six years ago Hazelden did a study that found that 41 percent of parents had smoked weed.  That said, a majority of parents (988 percent) in the study reported they'd be upset if they found out their kid was smoking it.  Only 40 percent of parents talk to their kids about dope, and roughly half the kids have tried it before graduating high school.



www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/ library/graphs/cvmarjna.htm 

http://www.aarpmagazine.org/health/Articles/a2005-01-18-mag-marijuana.html

http://www.hazelden.org/servlet/hazelden/cms/ptt/hazl_7030_shade.html?sf=t&sh=t&page_id=25827


Regards,


Steve


----------



## kid (Feb 26, 2005)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> ????????????:idunno: ROFLOL, kid did you smoke a little before you contemplated what to write here? Hey man, no hard feelings, you actually made me laugh today which seemed like an impossible task.
> 
> Ryan?


I'm glad i could help you crack a smile. And i meant that those people are mentally ILL, which is true. No i didn't get stoned; i havent done that for about 2 yrs i think.


----------



## kid (Feb 26, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Other attitudes: Six years ago Hazelden did a study that found that 41 percent of parents had smoked weed. That said, a majority of parents (988 percent) in the study reported they'd be upset if they found out their kid was smoking it. Only 40 percent of parents talk to their kids about dope, and roughly half the kids have tried it before graduating high school.
> 
> ...


Its true my old man went there and said the same thing. He beleives its almost a harmless drug compaired to all the others out there. He doesn't even use pot and he said this. My dad got major cool points from me at that time.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 26, 2005)

This just in...cannabinoids reduce inflammation in Alzheimer's.

The choice is between being senile and being merely forgetful and having a major case of the munchies...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/4286435.stm


Regards,


Steve


----------



## kid (Mar 5, 2005)

The legalization of marijuana may potentially save lives. Think about it.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 6, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> The legalization of marijuana may potentially save lives. Think about it.


I have thought about it.

It seems to me that the people who _choose_ to take a life do so out of a lack of respect for life.  Whether or not any particular substance is legal has no bearing whatsoever on their psychopathic tendencies.

In the story to which you refer, kid, that guy killed cops because he wanted to, not because marijuana is illegal.

_You_ think about it.


----------



## Lisa (Mar 6, 2005)

Kid said:
			
		

> The legalization of marijuana may potentially save lives. Think about it.





			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> I have thought about it.
> 
> It seems to me that the people who _choose_ to take a life do so out of a lack of respect for life. Whether or not any particular substance is legal has no bearing whatsoever on their psychopathic tendencies.
> 
> ...


 Please Kid, read this link.  

 Flatlander is right.  These deaths truly had nothing to do with illegal marijuana and the legalization of it wouldn't have changed a thing.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110116338672_4/?hub=Canada

  Sorry for the thread gank.


----------



## Kreth (Mar 6, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> Its true my old man went there and said the same thing. He beleives its almost a harmless drug compaired to all the others out there. He doesn't even use pot and he said this. My dad got major cool points from me at that time.


I agree. I think it's much less dangerous than even alcohol, for a number of reasons. After all, when's the last time you saw two stoners trying to beat the hell out of each other? 

Jeff


----------



## kid (Mar 6, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I have thought about it.
> 
> It seems to me that the people who _choose_ to take a life do so out of a lack of respect for life. Whether or not any particular substance is legal has no bearing whatsoever on their psychopathic tendencies.
> 
> ...


Dude i wasn't refering to anything in particular so for you to take one instance and think thats all i had thought of, well your wrong. Think of all the money the government spends on Marijuana alone in the Drugwars. I don't have an exact stat right now but read back a little ways in this thread and i'm sure you'll find one. Anyways, that money that they spend could be thrown at something totally differnt as cancer research or put into ssn or whatever actually will benefit from the money. It also could save lives of civilians who are just wanting to get some and fall victim to a dirty dealer or some junkie. It could potentially save lives of any non civilian who are trying to bust a marijuana dealer.  If you take it away from them by selling it on legal statis it becomes more regulated.  Think about that.


----------



## kid (Mar 6, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I agree. I think it's much less dangerous than even alcohol, for a number of reasons. After all, when's the last time you saw two stoners trying to beat the hell out of each other?
> 
> Jeff


Thats so true.


----------



## Lisa (Mar 6, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> Dude i wasn't refering to anything in particular so for you to take one instance and think thats all i had thought of, well your wrong. Think of all the money the government spends on Marijuana alone in the Drugwars. I don't have an exact stat right now but read back a little ways in this thread and i'm sure you'll find one. Anyways, that money that they spend could be thrown at something totally differnt as cancer research or put into ssn or whatever actually will benefit from the money. It also could save lives of civilians who are just wanting to get some and fall victim to a dirty dealer or some junkie. It could potentially save lives of any non civilian who are trying to bust a marijuana dealer. If you take it away from them by selling it on legal statis it becomes more regulated. Think about that.


 Just like alcohol and tobacco, marijuana will most likely be governed as to who can grow it and who can manufacture it and who can sell it.  It will not become so legal that everyone and anyone will be able to grow the stuff because if that were the case the government wouldn't be able to tax the crap out of it and make money from it.  You will still have illegal grow operations all over the country, you will still have law enforcement officers at risk trying to stop them, you will still have civilians fall victim to some dirty dealer of the now "black market" offering a cheaper high and raising crime rates due to people breaking into facilities that sell the stuff and stealing it.  The money saved is an admirable concept but could it not also be argued that the government will now have to increase payments to drug and abuse programs, cancer research because of the new insurgance of marijuana related cancers and what about finding a way to test people against smoking pot and driving?  Wouldn't that have to be done?

 Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to the legalization of marijuana but I am not all for it either.  I am just trying to weigh both sides of the scale here and I honestly believe that "legalizing" it would cause a domino effect and all the money we would supposedly save from fighting it as a crime would be used up elsewhere.

 Just my two cents.


----------



## Blind (Mar 6, 2005)

I don't think the drug war cost would come down that much in terms of detection, because it is still necessary to police the "bad boys" like coke and heroin etc. Most of the savings would come in freeing up the judicial system and some in the penal system, though I doubt that most of the people in prison for MJ are there for that alone. 

As for the government taxing it I think it would be difficult to do, most people who would want to use the stuff would probably just grow their own(I am guessing there I admit). In that respect organized crime would lose a lot of their income from growing weed. It is pretty hard to police someone growing a bonsai tree or three in their living room, even if you could, what would be the penalty for growing a personal amount of a substance that is legal? 

 I don't really have any real interest either way as it is not really my kind of thing, but it does seem funny to me that alcohol is legal yet a plant that grows naturally is not. On the driving front rather than develop a test for the drug I think it would be better to punish stupid driving more severely. Having a reliable test would be extremely difficult as it stays in the system for a long time, as someone said earlier though, whats the penalty for a person driving who hasn't slept for three days?

My 2 cents.


----------



## kid (Mar 7, 2005)

Nalia said:
			
		

> Just like alcohol and tobacco, marijuana will most likely be governed as to who can grow it and who can manufacture it and who can sell it. It will not become so legal that everyone and anyone will be able to grow the stuff because if that were the case the government wouldn't be able to tax the crap out of it and make money from it. You will still have illegal grow operations all over the country, you will still have law enforcement officers at risk trying to stop them, you will still have civilians fall victim to some dirty dealer of the now "black market" offering a cheaper high and raising crime rates due to people breaking into facilities that sell the stuff and stealing it. The money saved is an admirable concept but could it not also be argued that the government will now have to increase payments to drug and abuse programs, cancer research because of the new insurgance of marijuana related cancers and what about finding a way to test people against smoking pot and driving? Wouldn't that have to be done?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to the legalization of marijuana but I am not all for it either. I am just trying to weigh both sides of the scale here and I honestly believe that "legalizing" it would cause a domino effect and all the money we would supposedly save from fighting it as a crime would be used up elsewhere.
> 
> Just my two cents.


 
People are lazy.  Most of us could have a small garden with our vegtables in it but do we?  People can learn how to make a potent drink, some do, the majority doesn't.  It's easier to get it at the store.  If its legalized it should have restrictions on it.  About the money being save and the money being made off taxes is gonna be spent else where, isn't that the point?  Let me tell you something, people are not going to rob a store any more than a liqour store.  You seem to have this mind set that only looks at the very worst part of society, you know what thats also the smallest part of that scale.  All the shady crap kids get involved with will in trying to find a bag, these people can be cut out and are less likly to be exposed to harder Drugs.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 7, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> Dude i wasn't refering to anything in particular so for you to take one instance and think thats all i had thought of, well your wrong. Think of all the money the government spends on Marijuana alone in the Drugwars. I don't have an exact stat right now but read back a little ways in this thread and i'm sure you'll find one.


Yes...here it is. Note the bold part.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ws/kleiman.html



> Marijuana generates more arrests than any other illicit drug. Much of that doesn't have anything to do with law enforcement specifically targeting drug infractions. Much of that is literally somebody's driving a little funny, gets pulled over and the cop smells the marijuana smoke or sees the baggie on the seat. There are relatively few police officers out there who are spending their time trying to catch people using marijuana. More in suburban and rural areas obviously than in urban areas, but marijuana enforcement isn't a very high priority, it's just that there's a lot of marijuana smoking.
> 
> 
> And there are a lot of people that still act as if it were more or less legal. And therefore, violate Cheech and Chong's first rule of marijuana smoking, which is don't blow smoke [in a] cop's face. So there are a lot of arrests. Most of them don't lead to much of anything, except annoyance and embarrassment.
> ...


----------



## kid (Mar 7, 2005)

Ok, i read yours you read mine.



http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/costs/real-costs.htm


----------



## Tgace (Mar 7, 2005)

OK, where does it say that legalizing Marijuana will make a significant dent in those expenses?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 7, 2005)

> When people talk about the drug problem generically, whether they're talking about drug abuse or the cost of drug law enforcement, and then immediately switch the topic to marijuana, that's a little deceptive. Nothing we do about marijuana can really put a dent in either the problem of drug abuse or the problem of drug-related law enforcement and imprisonment, because those problems are overwhelmingly about other drugs.



Should we legalize Coke, Heroin, Meth. etc. too?


----------



## kid (Mar 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> OK, where does it say that legalizing Marijuana will make a significant dent in those expenses?


umm.... The graph.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 7, 2005)

Ummm..it says "Drug War" nothing about a breakdown of costs per specific drug....the bulk of $$ and enforcement is for "hard" drugs. Legalizing Marijuana isnt going to clear up a whole lot of money for other enforcement.


----------



## Kreth (Mar 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ummm..it says "Drug War" nothing about a breakdown of costs per specific drug....the bulk of $$ and enforcement is for "hard" drugs. Legalizing Marijuana isnt going to clear up a whole lot of money for other enforcement.


I disagree... In the "War on Drugs", the government has spent a lot of money demonizing marijuana as the "gateway drug."

Jeff


----------



## kid (Mar 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Should we legalize Coke, Heroin, Meth. etc. too?


they already have prescription drugs out there that give the same effects as those. I'm not saying that those should be legalized at all. Those are all very dangerous drugs that many people have overdosed on. Now, refering to the graph earlier lets say marijuana is an 8th of that. Thats still a giant amount of money. Lets say its a 10th thats still more money than either you or i will most likly encounter in our lives. That money can be thrown back in the drugwar and fight these leathal drugs.  Now that could make a substantial difference.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 7, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> they already have prescription drugs out there that give the same effects as those. I'm not saying that those should be legalized at all. Those are all very dangerous drugs that many people have overdosed on. Now, refering to the graph earlier lets say marijuana is an 8th of that. Thats still a giant amount of money. Lets say its a 10th thats still more money than either you or i will most likly encounter in our lives. That money can be thrown back in the drugwar and fight these leathal drugs. Now that could make a substantial difference.


While many professionals who know more than I say that the increase in addicts and others seeking counseling (not arguing that as a reason to not legalize, just statistics) would eat up a big chunk of any money freed up. Look Im not saying "it wont free up money so dont legalize it". Im just saying that its a weak argument for legalization because the largest chunk of cash and enforcement is spent on coke, not marijuana. Most of that "marijuana enforcement cash" is spent by the feds (DEA) too. Local cops aren't letting murderers go because they are making weed busts. Like the author of the post I linked said.....



> Marijuana generates more arrests than any other illicit drug. Much of that doesn't have anything to do with law enforcement specifically targeting drug infractions. Much of that is literally somebody's driving a little funny, gets pulled over and the cop smells the marijuana smoke or sees the baggie on the seat. There are relatively few police officers out there who are spending their time trying to catch people using marijuana.


and



> Marijuana laws have become a symbolic battleground, where the real battle is over what we should do about cocaine.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 7, 2005)

Ahh the 60's-70's...............I still have a pair of laced in the front, bell-bottom, kicking jeans.......


----------



## kid (Mar 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> While many professionals who know more than I say that the increase in addicts and others seeking counseling (not arguing that as a reason to not legalize, just statistics) would eat up a big chunk of any money freed up. Look Im not saying "it wont free up money so dont legalize it". Im just saying that its a weak argument for legalization because the largest chunk of cash and enforcement is spent on coke, not marijuana. Most of that "marijuana enforcement cash" is spent by the feds (DEA) too. Local cops aren't letting murderers go because they are making weed busts. Like the author of the post I linked said.....
> 
> 
> and


It is only one of the many reasons to legalize.  Save a dollar a day and it adds up.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 7, 2005)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> The thread 55 years has been coming to the topic of drugs and legalization of the. Up here in Canada it is becoming fairly liberal, and in most cases you just recieve a ticket, no court date. How do you all feel towards the legalization of majiuana? How close is the States, Really?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ryan


Coming back around. To post #1

I predict that most US states will decriminalize most user weight possession eventually. Seems to be the trend. I dont really see total legalization anywhere down the road.


----------



## kid (Mar 8, 2005)

i agree in the most part, but i beleive that marijuana will eventually be legalized.


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> <snip>...I'm just saying that its a weak argument for legalization because the largest chunk of cash and enforcement is spent on coke, not marijuana. Most of that "marijuana enforcement cash" is spent by the feds (DEA) too. Local cops aren't letting murderers go because they are making weed busts. Like the author of the post I linked said.....
> 
> 
> and



Friend of mine (55-year old hippie lady) got popped for 11 felonies a few months ago, all circulating around MJ...ELEVEN felonies, COME ON. They invested a lot of man-hours (22 cops searched her house...she's REAL scary   ). In the end, she won't do any time, but they confiscated some stuff and she had to put a second mortgage on her house to afford the lawyers fees. I think the lawyer, bail bondsman, and county were the only winners there. Bravo! maybe now they'll finally go after Jon Benet's real killer.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 8, 2005)

Yeah and five Canadian cops were gunned down by a Marijuana grower. The number of Cops at a house dosent really mean all that much. I had 3 cars and 6 cops cover me on a basic warrant arrest on a car stop just last night. The detective bureau probably has hundreds of open cases from petit larcenies to murder. This event would have just been another folder in the pile (the detectives assigned are probably vice and wouldnt be working on Jon Benet's case anyway). The legalization of Pot wouldnt really make my job any different. Maybe the 4 detectives in my Vice squad, but that would be about it. The idea that patrolmen and det. bureaus are ignoring other crimes because of marijuana is just kinda silly from my perspective. The DEA may have a different opinion, but to local and maybe even county/state levels a whole lot of resources (some yes) are not being chewed up by marijuana. Court systems may be a different story......


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yeah and five Canadian cops were gunned down by a Marijuana grower. The number of Cops at a house dosent really mean all that much. I had 3 cars and 6 cops cover me on a basic warrant arrest on a car stop just last night. The detective bureau probably has hundreds of open cases from petit larcenies to murder. This event would have just been another folder in the pile (the detectives assigned are probably vice and wouldnt be working on Jon Benet's case anyway). The legalization of Pot wouldnt really make my job any different. Maybe the 4 detectives in my Vice squad, but that would be about it.


The legalization of pot would make a difference to those three cops that got shot. Where there's money there's crime and the potential for violence. Take away the revenue and you take away the violence. 



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> The idea that patrolmen and det. bureaus are ignoring other crimes because of marijuana is just kinda silly from my perspective. The DEA may have a different opinion, but to local and maybe even county/state levels a whole lot of resources (some yes) are not being chewed up by marijuana. Court systems may be a different story......




Maybe I've got this wrong, but don't you all work from the same budget? Won't resources spent in one department or task force drain the funds for another? All I'm saying is that I'd rather have police funds spent on the resolution of violent crime than tracking down pot-smokers and dealers, who regardless of your example, are typically non-violent.


----------



## Ray (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> The legalization of pot would make a difference to those three cops that got shot. Where there's money there's crime and the potential for violence. Take away the revenue and you take away the violence.


I can't believe that this is being used as an arguement to legalize pot.  You could take almost any illegal activity (e.g. kiddie porn) and use the same arguement. 

Yes, I know, someone is going to say that pot isn't kidde porn.  But the reasoning still holds.



			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> All I'm saying is that I'd rather have police funds spent on the resolution of violent crime than tracking down pot-smokers and dealers, who regardless of your example, are typically non-violent.


I rather have police funds spent on enforcement of the law.  If it's illegal to posses pot or to make meth or to murder, then the cops should be enforcing those laws. 

Cops don't prevent crime and they don't "resolve" crime.  Depending on the crime and the situation: they warn people, they cite people, they arrest people...they don't punish people and they don't make law.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> The legalization of pot would make a difference to those three cops that got shot. Where there's money there's crime and the potential for violence. Take away the revenue and you take away the violence.


Sorry, psi, but in this circumstance you are incorrect.  

To begin with, the police were there on circumstances unrelated to the weed.  They were killed anyway.

Secondly, weed is (currently) a criminal industry.  You can remove the product, but the criminal remains.  They simply find another way to earn their cheddar.  Decriminalization of marijuana will not change the tendency of lawbreakers to disrespect the law. 

Bear in mind that I am for decriminalization.  This, however, is not an argument that I would use. :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Maybe I've got this wrong, but don't you all work from the same budget? Won't resources spent in one department or task force drain the funds for another? All I'm saying is that I'd rather have police funds spent on the resolution of violent crime than tracking down pot-smokers and dealers, who regardless of your example, are typically non-violent.


Im paid from the property taxes levied on the homeowners and business owners of my town.


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I can't believe that this is being used as an arguement to legalize pot.  You could take almost any illegal activity (e.g. kiddie porn) and use the same arguement.



Yes, you could, but I wouldn't, because I find quite a large moral gap between creating/possessing kiddie porn and growing/selling/smoking pot. The kiddie porn intrinsically has victims, whereas pot hurts very few. 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Yes, I know, someone is going to say that pot isn't kidde porn.  But the reasoning still holds.



Not to me. 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I rather have police funds spent on enforcement of the law.  If it's illegal to posses pot or to make meth or to murder, then the cops should be enforcing those laws.
> 
> Cops don't prevent crime and they don't "resolve" crime.  Depending on the crime and the situation: they warn people, they cite people, they arrest people...they don't punish people and they don't make law.



I know LEOs have a job to do and I do respect them in general. I know where laws come from. However, the LEO level is where the rubber hits the road, not congress. As King Lear once discovered, words are inconsequential, it's action that counts. 

We have a fundamental disconnect here. I may have a criminal mentality, but I believe it is my right to use my own moral compass to direct my actions and formulate my own judgements and to speak out if I find laws to be unjust and more hurtful than helpful. According to the law, my friend got basically what she deserved. According to me, she's an aging, pain-filled woman who never hurt anyone and whose retirement is now in jeopardy. So I'm speaking out.

You seem to believe (at least from what you stated) that a literal interpretation and obeysance (sp) of the law trumps personal beliefs. That's fine, just a difference in perspective.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Secondly, weed is (currently) a criminal industry. You can remove the product, but the criminal remains. They simply find another way to earn their cheddar. Decriminalization of marijuana will not change the tendency of lawbreakers to disrespect the law.


Yes. Im fairly certain that the shooter wouldnt have truned into a peace loving, non violent, boy scout if weed had been legal. Bad people do evil things. Laws just make people do illegal things. Ive arrested plenty of people who did something illegal but were otherwise pretty "nice" people. Shoplifters come to mind....


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Sorry, psi, but in this circumstance you are incorrect.
> 
> To begin with, the police were there on circumstances unrelated to the weed.  They were killed anyway.



Hi Flatlander, I just had what was stated to go on. It's a tragedy.



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> Secondly, weed is (currently) a criminal industry.  You can remove the product, but the criminal remains.  They simply find another way to earn their cheddar.  Decriminalization of marijuana will not change the tendency of lawbreakers to disrespect the law.
> 
> Bear in mind that I am for decriminalization.  This, however, is not an argument that I would use. :asian:



I see your point, but I think there's a great deal of supposition with that statement. I don't think pot growers/dealers would necessarily jump to another illicit activity to provide income. I know my friend would not have.
 :asian:


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 9, 2005)

Yes, fair enough.  Admittedly, that was a generalization. :asian:


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im paid from the property taxes levied on the homeowners and business owners of my town.



Right, but those funds are dispersed through a general budget, right, x amount going to vice, y to homicide, etc.? If you remove part of x, y would be greater, correct?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Decriminalization of marijuana will not change the tendency of lawbreakers to disrespect the law.


Just a slight tangent, but a little relevant. I find that statement "generally" true. A phenomena I have found on the job is how when you find a person who blatantly disregards, say a vehicle and traffic law, you find "other" things interesting with them. Warrants, drugs, stolen property, suspended license, etc. Now we all violate traffic laws fairly regularly, I mean those instances where you see somebody do something on the road and say "man that took a lot of nerve" or "Why you stupid @#$%#$!" Now I dont really use that as a rule when I work, but there are many times when I see somebody do something and think "This guy has something else going on". Just a gut feeling type of thing.


----------



## Ray (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Yes, you could, but I wouldn't, because I find quite a large moral gap between creating/possessing kiddie porn and growing/selling/smoking pot. The kiddie porn intrinsically has victims, whereas pot hurts very few.


Sure.  It's easy for us to rationalize our favorite weakness, but the vices of others are another matter.  


			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> ...but I believe it is my right to use my own moral compass to direct my actions and formulate my own judgements and to speak out if I find laws to be unjust and more hurtful than helpful. According to the law, my friend got basically what she deserved. According to me, she's an aging, pain-filled woman who never hurt anyone and whose retirement is now in jeopardy. So I'm speaking out.


You're probably right. So, if my moral compass tells me that I should begin to shoot that cut me off on the freeway, then it's all good.


			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> You seem to believe (at least from what you stated) that a literal interpretation and obeysance (sp) of the law trumps personal beliefs. That's fine, just a difference in perspective.


I believe that, if a law is wrong, it should be changed.  If society won't change it, then society should enforce it.  There are venues for changing laws; I don't believe that laws should just be ignored if inconvenient.  

If we tell ourselves we can pick and choose which laws we're going to follow, then shouldn't we afford others the same luxury?  If you're going to smoke pot, then I'm going to (e.g) steal from the rich.  I can rationalize my decision, too: they have way too much money (Bill Gates for instance) and I am way too poor (it's not "fair").  If we pick and choose which laws we're going to follow; then we should still bear the brunt of the associated penalties.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Right, but those funds are dispersed through a general budget, right, x amount going to vice, y to homicide, etc.? If you remove part of x, y would be greater, correct?


Individually we are all paid according to our rank and time in rank regardless of what office we work in. If the vice office gets any more of a chunk set aside than anybody else its for overtime. Our vice squad is just 4 detectives and a lieutenant. If weed were legalized, maybe 2 of them at the most (maybe none Im not a vice cop) would get moved into the general bureau and the others would still be working on the other vices.


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Sure.  It's easy for us to rationalize our favorite weakness, but the vices of others are another matter.



You inferred something that I neither stated or implied. I believe if you are not hurting someone else in the course of your actions, you should have the freedom to pursue that activity. Natural law. Kiddie porn is a crime against nature in which there are instrinsically victims. Murdering someone who might find your pot and prosecute you when they come over is a crime against nature. Growing or smoking pot? Not so much.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> You're probably right. So, if my moral compass tells me that I should begin to shoot that cut me off on the freeway, then it's all good.
> I believe that, if a law is wrong, it should be changed.  If society won't change it, then society should enforce it.  There are venues for changing laws; I don't believe that laws should just be ignored if inconvenient.


 
See above statement. Don't do it if you're hurting someone else. Speeding isn't really much of a crime. Those limits were imposed back in the '70s to save gas. Cars handle and brake better now than then, and they're more fuel efficient. 

Cutting someone off and endangering their welfare while speeding _is_ criminal behavior. 

Do you see the distinction I'm making? I don't believe in "if it feels good, do it," rather, "if it feels good and doesn't hurt anyone else, you should be able to do it."




			
				Ray said:
			
		

> If we tell ourselves we can pick and choose which laws we're going to follow, then shouldn't we afford others the same luxury?  If you're going to smoke pot, then I'm going to (e.g) steal from the rich.  I can rationalize my decision, too: they have way too much money (Bill Gates for instance) and I am way too poor (it's not "fair").  If we pick and choose which laws we're going to follow; then we should still bear the brunt of the associated penalties.



I think what I said above explains my rationale concerning this as well.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> You inferred something that I neither stated or implied. I believe if you are not hurting someone else in the course of your actions, you should have the freedom to pursue that activity. Natural law.


OK, but what if its illegal? If you say "so what" then Im in agreement with Ray.

As to law and violence. Again I say ...Bad people do evil things. Laws just make people do illegal things.


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Individually we are all paid according to our rank and time in rank regardless of what office we work in. If the vice office gets any more of a chunk set aside than anybody else its for overtime. Our vice squad is just 4 detectives and a lieutenant. If weed were legalized, maybe 2 of them at the most (maybe none Im not a vice cop) would get moved into the general bureau and the others would still be working on the other vices.



Thanks for the info, it's interesting. Perhaps MJ crime doesn't sap as much as I initially thought, but I'd still rather have those two extra guys in the general bureau. :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info, it's interesting. Perhaps MJ crime doesn't sap as much as I initially thought, but I'd still rather have those two extra guys in the general bureau. :asian:


Bear in mind im in a mid-sized dept. Metro and city police are probably way different.


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> OK, but what if its illegal? If you say "so what" then Im in agreement with Ray.



Well I would hope so, you're an LEO!  :ultracool: I don't particularly do anything illegal, except for speeding, but I do support a person's right as a human being to pursue activities that are often illegal by the letter of the law, but are victimless pursuits. For example, in many states sodomy laws were still on the books until a short time ago, but I support other people's rights to be gay. I also would have supported civil disobedience concerning the Jim Crow laws if i had been alive during that time. So not so much a "so what" as "that depends.."



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> As to law and violence. Again I say ...Bad people do evil things. Laws just make people do illegal things.



I agree, though evil and illegal are not always one and the same, IMO.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Well I would hope so, you're an LEO! :ultracool: I don't particularly do anything illegal, except for speeding, but I do support a person's right as a human being to pursue activities that are often illegal by the letter of the law, but are victimless pursuits. For example, in many states sodomy laws were still on the books until a short time ago, but I support other people's rights to be gay. I also would have supported civil disobedience concerning the Jim Crow laws if i had been alive during that time. So not so much a "so what" as "that depends..".


So are you saying "break the law if it harms nobody"? and are you expecting LEO's to not enforce laws if they hurt nobody? You arent really making a clear statement there regarding the law and if you believe people should obey it. Or at least not be surprised when they get punished for breaking it. When the police found out that your friend was (growing?/possessing?) marijuana, with the law as it is, what did you EXPECT them to do???


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> I agree, though evil and illegal are not always one and the same, IMO.


Thats exactly my point. Legalizing MJ wouldnt have made that shooters proclivity to shoot cops any less IMO.


----------



## Ray (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> You inferred something that I neither stated or implied. I believe if you are not hurting someone else in the course of your actions, you should have the freedom to pursue that activity. Natural law. Kiddie porn is a crime against nature in which there are instrinsically victims. Murdering someone who might find your pot and prosecute you when they come over is a crime against nature. Growing or smoking pot? Not so much.


Nature has no published code book - you are doing no more and no less than a vigilante or other criminal by deciding which laws you're going to follow.

In our culture and in our day & age, we have collectively made certain things legal and illegal.  Last semester I took a sociology class and an example of other cultures' practices included a rite of passage for a certain tribe - the rite was boys "coming of age" to perform oral sex on their elders (I don't have the book in front of me, but could probably cite the reference Friday night).  Apparently these people don't think that this practice has "victims."  If you judge that culture and there practices by your standards then you are guilty of "ethnocentrism."  In our culture, that would be viewed as wrong by most people.

The point is that: you and I could decide that something in our culture that is currently illegal shouldn't be and then we could ignore it.  Yes, we can decide which laws to follow, but we should be held accountable by the society in which we live.

And who says only crimes that have "victims" should be crimes? How in the heck did you arrive at that well-thought-out conclusion?  And how does one assess the degree of victimization?  And if we only hurt ourselves isn't there a cost to society (ref cigarette smoking)?



			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> Cutting someone off and endangering their welfare while speeding _is_ criminal behavior.


So is smoking/possessing pot.


			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> Do you see the distinction I'm making?


Yes, I see your distinction, it is abundantly clear: what you do is okay, what other's do may not be and you get to decide rather than society deciding.


			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> I think what I said above explains my rationale concerning this as well.


It certainly does.


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Thats exactly my point. Legalizing MJ wouldnt have made that shooters proclivity to shoot cops any less IMO.



Gotcha. But it would have increased their motivation, right? If they weren't worried about getting prosecuted I doubt they would have shot the cops, though I don't know the full story.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Gotcha. But it would have increased their motivation, right? If they weren't worried about getting prosecuted I doubt they would have shot the cops, though I don't know the full story.


If they werent worried about being prosecuted then the Cops wouldnt have even been there. Kinda "chicken and the egg" there.

I could probably avoid ever getting shot if I just sat in the office all day and didnt do my job too....appeasing criminals so they wont do violent things. If kiddy porn was legal than that guy who killed that Florida detective last year probably wouldnt have shot either. I dont think that argument is very substantial for legalization. There are other better ones that dont argue that we are going to turn bad people good....


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

What about Cigarettes as an analogy. They admittedly cause more damage than MJ (due in large fact to their availability and number of users). The current trend is to demonize them and their manufacturers. Taxes go up. Lawsuits drive up costs, laws are passed against their use in public places. The blackmarket trade in them is skyrocketing in attempts to make $$$ by avoiding taxes. Im fairly certain that some of those smugglers would shoot a cop rather than be arrested too, and thats over a legal product. My point is that there are many holes in the "legalize it and cops wont get killed because of it" rationale.


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So are you saying "break the law if it harms nobody"? and are you expecting LOE's to not enforce laws if they hurt nobody? You arent really making a clear statement there regarding the law and if you believe people should obey it.



I thought I was pretty clear. Use your own judgement and yes, if a law is unjust and victimless, then consider not abiding it. And I fully expect LEOs to enforce the law--though they are usually less enthusiastic about enforcing laws that are culturally and morally obsolete--like the sodomy laws, for example. I believe those are typically only used to increase the sentences in sex crimes, right? 

This might seem contradictory, but it's not. Take the speeding example. I'm still going to do it, and I won't argue with the officer when I get ticketed, but I will tell my wife I think it sucks. 




			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Or at least not be surprised when they get punished for breaking it. When the police found out that your friend was (growing?/possessing?) marijuana, with the law as it is, what did you EXPECT them to do???



I'm expecting them to do their jobs, but I don't think there's justice in taking the life savings of an old lady for a victimless crime. And if her lawyer wasn't good, she would have done jail time. That could be expected, she knew it was a risk. It's a possibility and could easily happen, but I don't think it's right. I don't blame the LEOs themselves for what transpired, rather the system that created this chain of events.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> That could be expected, she knew it was a risk. It's a possibility and could easily happen, but I don't think it's right. I don't blame the LEOs themselves for what transpired, rather the system that created this chain of events.


As cold as it sounds...if you are going to play the game you should accept the risks. She had a choice and she made it...


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Nature has no published code book - you are doing no more and no less than a vigilante or other criminal by deciding which laws you're going to follow.
> 
> In our culture and in our day & age, we have collectively made certain things legal and illegal.  Last semester I took a sociology class and an example of other cultures' practices included a rite of passage for a certain tribe - the rite was boys "coming of age" to perform oral sex on their elders (I don't have the book in front of me, but could probably cite the reference Friday night).  Apparently these people don't think that this practice has "victims."  If you judge that culture and there practices by your standards then you are guilty of "ethnocentrism."  In our culture, that would be viewed as wrong by most people.
> 
> ...


 

Actually, when you take another class or two, you might hear about "Natural Law" --it's a fine american tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law


Here's the page:



> In law, natural law is the doctrine that just laws are immanent in nature (that can be claimed as discovered but not created by such things as a bill of rights) and/or that they can emerge by natural process of resolving conflicts (as embodied by common law). These two aspects are actually very different, and can sometimes oppose or complement each other, although they share the common trait that they rely on immanence as opposed to design in finding just laws. In either case, natural law is considered to be something that exists independent and outside of the legal process itself, rather than simply being a principle whose origin is inside the legal system.
> 
> The concept of natural law was very important in the development of Anglo-American common law. In the struggles between Parliament and the monarchy, Parliament often made reference to the Fundamental Laws of England which embodied natural law since time immemorial and set limits on the power of the monarchy. The concept of natural law was expressed in the English Bill of Rights and the United States Declaration of Independence -- and by 19th-century anarchist and legal theorist, Lysander Spooner.
> 
> ...



And please drop the insulting tone, I'm playing nice with you. I have thought this out quite well, I just came to a different conclusion than you have. 



> So is smoking/possessing pot.
> Yes, I see your distinction, it is abundantly clear: what you do is okay, what other's do may not be and you get to decide rather than society deciding.
> It certainly does.



If what I believe is just and according to natural law and harms no one else, then yeah, what I do is ok, though it may not be legal and I might suffer the ramifications of that.


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> As cold as it sounds...if you are going to play the game you should accept the risks. She had a choice and she made it...



Do the crime, do the time. Yep, I understand. And I'm saying it sucks.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Do the crime, do the time. Yep, I understand. And I'm saying it sucks.


Then we are in agreement here. 

IMO if you dont like the rules of the game, you go through the process of changing the rule books. Until then, when the flag gets thrown you take your penalty. Stamping your feet and swearing at the ref. isnt going to change anything. Thats the way civilization is held together.


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What about Cigarettes as an analogy. They admittedly cause more damage than MJ (due in large fact to their availability and number of users). The current trend is to demonize them and their manufacturers. Taxes go up. Lawsuits drive up costs, laws are passed against their use in public places. The blackmarket trade in them is skyrocketing in attempts to make $$$ by avoiding taxes. Im fairly certain that some of those smugglers would shoot a cop rather than be arrested too, and thats over a legal product. My point is that there are many holes in the "legalize it and cops wont get killed because of it" rationale.



True, not the best example (canada killings). The cigarrette analogy--you're talking about money-making through illegal smuggling of a legal product, that's kinda similar to moonshining. When a product's value is increased through an illicit trade, there is inherently increased risk on both sides of the law.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> True, not the best example (canada killings). The cigarrette analogy--you're talking about money-making through illegal smuggling of a legal product, that's kinda similar to moonshining. When a product's value is increased through an illicit trade, there is inherently increased risk on both sides of the law.


True..my attempted point is there will always be people willing to do violence. Changing law because people may commit violence to prevent being arrested is wrong IMO. Almost on par with dealing with terrorists to keep them from committing murderous acts.


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Then we are in agreement here.
> 
> IMO if you dont like the rules of the game, you go through the process of changing the rule books. Until then, when the flag gets thrown you take your penalty. Stamping your feet and swearing at the ref. isnt going to change anything. Thats the way civilization is held together.



We pretty much agree. I'm not dissing the LEOs for doing their jobs (the Refs), I think the laws are the real problem for creating this problem. Public criticism of these laws as unjust is within my rights and I feel my duty because the seeds of public dissent often fuel change.


----------



## Ray (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Actually, when you take another class or two, you might hear about "Natural Law" --it's a fine american tradition.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law


Natural law, as you call it, is one of man's philosophical creation.  It has nothing to do with Nature, (e.g.) contrast with natural physical forces like gravity that are describe by mathematics.



			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> And please drop the insulting tone, I'm playing nice with you. I have thought this out quite well, I just came to a different conclusion than you have.


It was a legit question.  How do you assess the degree of victimization; why do you get to decide which laws to follow and which ones are wrong for me?  The intended tone was not insulting; sometimes it's hard to transmit tone in print (so I apologize).


			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> If what I believe is just and according to natural law and harms no one else, then yeah, what I do is ok, though it may not be legal and I might suffer the ramifications of that.


I agree that you might suffer the ramifications of your actions...we all must suffer the consequences of what we do.  I don't agree that smoking dope is victimless; anymore than I believe that prostitution, etc is victimless.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> We pretty much agree. I'm not dissing the LEOs for doing their jobs (the Refs), I think the laws are the real problem for creating this problem. Public criticism of these laws as unjust is within my rights and I feel my duty because the seeds of public dissent often fuel change.


Sure, thats always been your right and more power to ya if you can get things changed, if thats what the majority of our citizens want and our system works, then thats democracy...the only issue I have with some of the legalization crowd is the "in you're face" I dont have to abide by "your rules" attitude and the shock, anger and disbelief when they are made subject to the law.....


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Sure, thats always been your right and more power to ya if you can get things changed, if thats what the majority of our citizens want and our system works, then thats democracy...the only issue I have with some of the legalization crowd is the "in you're face" I dont have to abide by "your rules" attitude and the shock, anger and disbelief when they are made subject to the law.....



Right, I'm talking about the justice of those laws, not the known potential for punishment by breaking them.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Right, I'm talking about the justice of those laws, not the known potential for punishment by breaking them.


Right, but as devils advocate, you "could" do up to 1 year for stealing a candy bar in NY. Would that be justice? The potential punishment isnt really the barometer for justice. I do have issues with mandatory sentencing though because it takes human judgment out of the process, where true justice really resides IMO.


----------



## psi_radar (Mar 9, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Natural law, as you call it, is one of man's philosophical creation.  It has nothing to do with Nature, (e.g.) contrast with natural physical forces like gravity that are describe by mathematics.



Well, democracy and our system of laws are just constructs based on philosophy. The Natural Laws are the larger body of mores that those laws are generally compared against when justice is considered. Take the Nazi reference in that quote I put up. The Final Solution was perfectly legal in Germany but against Natural Law. Most people would agree that that behavior SHOULD be prohibited, but it wasn't. Of course there are sickos out there that would disagree. But most wouldn't. Natural Laws are those internal beliefs that have protected man, allowed him to survive, and to create societies that benefit him. 




			
				Ray said:
			
		

> It was a legit question.  How do you assess the degree of victimization; why do you get to decide which laws to follow and which ones are wrong for me?  The intended tone was not insulting; sometimes it's hard to transmit tone in print (so I apologize).


No problemo. Perhaps I was reading into your tone as well. It's a good question. I can decide to follow any law I want, or not. I do suffer the consequences of disobedience. It's about belief. I can believe my actions are right or wrong. That may not parallel illegal and legal. Coincidentally, it usually does. Laws don't make good people. Laws make obedient people. It's in our capacity for choice that allows us distinction. Just because I choose not to do something because of the associated risk, doesn't mean I think it's necessarily wrong. 




			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I agree that you might suffer the ramifications of your actions...we all must suffer the consequences of what we do.  I don't agree that smoking dope is victimless; anymore than I believe that prostitution, etc is victimless.



This is one of those choices. I don't feel anyone is victimized through pot smoking, we simply diverge there. However, almost anything we do carries a price tag on society. I can't stop you from eating that extra cheeseburger, though it might hurt me down the line a little. With MJ, its illegality hurts more than helps. That's my opinion. 

Ok, gotta work. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Ray (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Right, but as devils advocate, you "could" do up to 1 year for stealing a candy bar in NY. Would that be justice? The potential punishment isnt really the barometer for justice. I do have issues with mandatory sentencing though because it takes human judgment out of the process, where true justice really resides IMO.


Mandatory sentenaces are still determined by human judgment; it's just that the humans making the judgement were lawmakers and/or voters.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Mandatory sentenaces are still determined by human judgment; it's just that the humans making the judgement were lawmakers and/or voters.


True, but people and human activity are too varied to be jammed into mandated extremes. Laws should be impartial. Sentencing should take each individual and their history into account. There are some people who "should" be locked up for a year because they stole (again for the 75th-100th time with no serious consequence) and then there is some kid or "normal" person who just made a bad decision. The concept of "everybody does the same time" just dosent really apply where "the rubber meets the road". The real problem is that there are some nutty judges who slap really bad people on the wrist and lock up some kid for a dime bag of weed.


----------



## Ray (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The real problem is that there are some nutty judges who slap really bad people on the wrist and lock up some kid for a dime bag of weed.


Just when I thought we had no common ground.  Agreed


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Just when I thought we had no common ground. Agreed


:asian:


----------



## raedyn (Mar 9, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Weed is (currently) a criminal industry. You can remove the product, but the criminal remains. They simply find another way to earn their cheddar. Decriminalization of marijuana will not change the tendency of lawbreakers to disrespect the law.


 There are two kinds of people invovled in this black market economy. People whose primary motivation is profit (or who are law-breakers anyway), and people who just want some marijuana.

The first kind of people will simply move on to other profitable industry. They are in it for a buck, they don't care about the laws, many specifically have contempt for laws, police & the justice system. These are your higher level dealers, many involved in gangs, your "criminal element". 

The second kind of people (for example, my uncle who has Multiple Sclerosis and self-medicates with marijuana, or the peace loving hippie throwback to the 60's art teacher at my high school) aren't the "criminal type". They are generally law-abiding citizens that don't involve themselves in the rest of the seedy bits of society. They are nervous dealing with violent criminals, they don't want their money supporting gangs. Maybe they have a few plants growing in the basement to support their own habit and stay out of the shadier circles. They wouldn't kill anyone to protect their stash, they wouldn't steal to suppor their habit.

Personally, I've met more marijuana users that fall into the second group -- but that might be a function of me not hanging out with gangs and ex-cons and that crowd very much.

The first kind of people will be criminals no matter the status of marijuana legislation. Why is it that the scond kind of people should be lumped in with "criminals" that we paint as big bad evil people? There's little difference between someone who smokes marijuana and someone who smokes cigarettes, except one of them can go to the corner store to get their product of choice, supporting legal businesses, paying taxes, and knowing they're getting a consistent product and consistent value while the other one must fend for themselves on the black market. There is a difference between people who smoke marijuana or cigarettes and people who smoke crack, though. I believe the harder drugs should remain illegal.

The generally law-abiding citizens should be given a legitimate avenue to obtain their drug of choice, just as cigarette smokers and alcohol drinkers have. It should come with limits about where and when it can be used, who can purchase it, etc. Just like tobacco and alcohol. Responsible adults should be able to make the choice for themselves and then police and prison resources could be dedicated to more dangerous and nefarious criminals.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

> There are two kinds of people invovled in this black market economy. People whose primary motivation is profit (or who are law-breakers anyway), and people who just want some marijuana.


Yes, but each are still breaking the law. Until the laws are changed, you play the game and take your chances. Dont be shocked if you get arrested. Expecting to be exempt from the law because you are really a "good person" just isnt going to fly in my book.


----------



## raedyn (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yes, but each are still breaking the law. Until the laws are changed, you play the game and take your chances. Dont be shocked if you get arrested. Expecting to be exempt from the law because you are really a "good person" just isnt going to fly in my book.


I agree. That's why I suggest the laws should be changed.


----------



## Deuce (Mar 9, 2005)

Then you have cops who come to your apartment because of a noise complaint and find a pipe filled with pot sitting in plain view by your front door, and pretend not to see it. Actually he picked it up, sniffed it, then put it back down. 

I think he realized that we were just university students having a little party on a Friday night, drinking beer and smoking a little weed. We may have been a bit loud, but we showed respect to the officers and asured them we would settle down. No charges or fines were issued. Maybe he thought the paper work and the hassle wasn't worth the crime. Maybe he was just in a good mood and gave us a break. Who knows. But it does show that pot is becoming less of a concern for even police officers (at least one anyway). 

It's sort of becoming like underage drinking I think. They're both illegal, many people do it, and even law enforcement may turn a blind eye if the people invloved are being responsible about it.


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Mar 9, 2005)

Re: Deuce's last post -

(humorous / sarcastic logical syllogism follows)

Someone called to complain about the noise. Noone called to complain about the pot. Therefore, pot is less harmful / bothersome to people than noise is.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 9, 2005)

Well, actually, it was probably more of a ruckus.....


----------



## Tgace (Mar 10, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> Then you have cops who come to your apartment because of a noise complaint and find a pipe filled with pot sitting in plain view by your front door, and pretend not to see it. Actually he picked it up, sniffed it, then put it back down.
> 
> I think he realized that we were just university students having a little party on a Friday night, drinking beer and smoking a little weed. We may have been a bit loud, but we showed respect to the officers and asured them we would settle down. No charges or fines were issued. Maybe he thought the paper work and the hassle wasn't worth the crime. Maybe he was just in a good mood and gave us a break. Who knows. But it does show that pot is becoming less of a concern for even police officers (at least one anyway).
> 
> It's sort of becoming like underage drinking I think. They're both illegal, many people do it, and even law enforcement may turn a blind eye if the people invloved are being responsible about it.


Thats what happens when its decriminalized. In my state I dont "have" to arrest somebody for an offense thats not a felony or misdemeanor. Simple possession here is a violation. The penal law equivalent of a traffic ticket. I can still arrest you if I catch you with it, but discretion can come into effect.

Moral of the story, be polite and non-argumentative. It can go a long way.


----------



## kid (Mar 18, 2005)

smokin pot is ok.


----------



## bignick (Mar 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Thats what happens when its decriminalized. In my state I dont "have" to arrest somebody for an offense thats not a felony or misdemeanor. Simple possession here is a violation. The penal law equivalent of a traffic ticket. I can still arrest you if I catch you with it, but discretion can come into effect.
> 
> Moral of the story, be polite and non-argumentative. It can go a long way.


 You mean getting in a cops face and arguing over about every little claim he makes isn't the best way to get off?


----------

