# Legalize it



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jul 22, 2009)

> Proponents of marijuana legalization have advanced plenty of arguments in support of their drug of choice - that marijuana is less dangerous than legal substances like cigarettes and alcohol; that pot has legitimate medical uses; that the money spent prosecuting marijuana offenses would be better used on more pressing public concerns.


 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/200907...DeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDaXNtYXJpanVhbmF0

Why Marijuana is illegal:

http://legalizepot.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/why-is-marijuana-illegal/



> We currently spend billions of dollars every year to chase peaceful people who happen to like to get high. These people get locked up in prison and the taxpayers have to foot the bill. We have to pay for food, housing, health care, attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses to lock these people up. This is extremely expensive! We could save billions of dollars every year as a nation if we stop wasting money locking people up for having marijuana. In addition, if marijuana were legal, the government would be able to collect taxes on it, and would have a lot more money to pay for effective drug education programs and other important causes.


 
http://www.mjlegal.org/essayspeech.html


----------



## Omar B (Jul 22, 2009)

I'm all for it.  Put it in the stores and out of the hands of the gun toting criminals.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 22, 2009)

Over my dead body.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/fashion/19pot.html?hp



> Marijuana Is Gateway Drug for Two Debates
> 
> Joyce, 52 and a writer in Manhattan, started smoking pot when she was 15, and for years it was a pleasant escape, a calming protective cloud. Then it became an obsession, something she needed to get through the day. She found herself hiding her addiction from her family, friends and co-workers.
> 
> ...



Pot is not harmless.  It destroys lives and health.  It is illegal in most locations of the US because the majority of citizens want it to be illegal, which is reason enough right there.

Medical marijuana, which I would otherwise be in favor of, has become nothing more than backdoor legalization for the recreational use of pot in California.

I remain against it.  Nothing will ever change my mind on this subject.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jul 22, 2009)

http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html

It is not a gateway drug:



> Recent research suggests that recreationally used cannabis does not act as a gateway drug to harder drugs such as alcohol, cocaine and heroine. The same will apply to users of medicinal cannabis.


 


> Roughly 1% of adults abuse pot, and one in 300 have a pot addiction.


 http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects 

http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/gateway.html

Not much proof that Marijuana is a gateway drug. The same could be said of Alcohol and Cigarettes as "gateway drugs" to Marijuana.  Even WebMd admits no proof that it is a gateway drug.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 22, 2009)

Let's make everything that could possibly cause harm or endanger us illegal and completely do away with personal choice and responsibility. Would that make you happy, Bill? 

No more going outside. You can get cancer from too much exposure to the sun. 

No more socializing. Meeting other people is too dangerous because they could influence you to do bad things. 

No more watching TV, using the PC, or reading books. It cuases too much wear and tear on the eyes. 

No more driving a vehicle. You could crash it and die! 

No more cheeseburgers for you buddy! It could lead to eating other fatty foods and we know that obesity causes more health problems than smoking and drinking alcohol combined! 

No more sex! God forbid you get an STD...or worse...it could lead to more kinky and immoral sex acts...like french ticklers and stuff...

No more pet ownership. Dogs can turn on you and have been known to kill small children. Besides, dogs are a gateway to owning bigger..more dangerous animals like tigers! 

Why don't we oulaw breathing while we're at it. There's so much harmful stuff in the air it just ain't worth the risk. 

Sound ridiculous? No more so than the argument for not decriminalizing something that grows naturally on its own with no help from man. 

Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to dictate to others whether they can or can not do something when whether they do it or not has no direct impact on your life and/or well-being. That's a freedom and a right we've lost sight of in the US. _"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." _


----------



## crushing (Jul 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Over my dead body.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/fashion/19pot.html?hp
> I remain against it. Nothing will ever change my mind on this subject.


 
Over your dead body is a very strong statement.  If it were legal, would you push for its prohibition?



> The risk of addiction, they say, is less problematic than for alcohol and other drugs.


 
If so, are you doing the same for alcohol and tobacco?


----------



## MJS (Jul 22, 2009)

Gun control, drug control...no matter what people try to control, if you're bound and determined to get it, you will.  People can try to get guns off the street, yet somehow, some way, the badguys will get them.  Don't want your kids to have sex....sorry, turn on any soap opera or night time tv show, and you're bound to see someone in bed, kissing, touching, whatever.  

Some will say that by using weed, it'll effect others around you.  In other words, smoke it, get high, get behind the wheel of a car, and now you're risking the lives of everyone else on the road.  Thats true, but in reality, its no different than someone stopping off at happy hour after work, tossing down more than you should, and now you're risking killing everyone else on the road, because you're drunk.  Yet alcohol is perfectly legal, if you're over 21.  

As CC said, getting up in the AM and starting your day is dangerous.  So, make it legal, keep it illegal, either way, I really don't care, due to the fact that I don't smoke it, never have smoked it, and never will smoke it.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 22, 2009)

Top 7 Reasons Why it's Illegal
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/tp/Why-is-Marijuana-Illegal.htm

My favorite, of course, is #5
[/quote]
*5. It was once associated with oppressed ethnic groups.*

The intense anti-marijuana movement of the 1930s dovetailed nicely with the intense anti-Chicano movement of the 1930s. Marijuana was associated with Mexican Americans, and a ban on marijuana was seen as a way of discouraging Mexican-American subcultures from developing.

Today, thanks in large part to the very public popularity of marijuana among whites during the 1960s and 1970s, marijuana is no longer seen as what one might call an ethnic drug--but the groundwork for the anti-marijuana movement was laid down at a time when marijuana was seen as an encroachment on the U.S. majority-white culture. [/quote]

What would the US be like if us WASPs weren't so fond of our whiskey?


----------



## Satt (Jul 22, 2009)

I don't smoke and I probably never will, but I support people's right to smoke. The government needs to get back in their place and out of our personal lives. (I know this will never be the case though) I don't care what people choose to do even if it does destroy their lives as long as they don't affect anyone else's lives.


----------



## JDenver (Jul 22, 2009)

One of the most hypocritical positions in North American society is that you can smoke and drink, but not do marijuana.


----------



## Carol (Jul 22, 2009)

Yo dude!  

So like....


....I'm sorry...what were we talkin' about?


----------



## Satt (Jul 22, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Yo dude!
> 
> So like....
> 
> ...


 

LMFAO!!! :roflmao:


----------



## Darksoul (Jul 22, 2009)

-I used to be pretty hardcore set againt the use of any illegal drug. Then I got older, got to know more people, exposed to different lifestyles, (going to a goth club for 10 years WILL expose you), and have discovered that the majority of pot users are pretty laid back individuals. I consider more than a few potheads to be my friends, and it has nothing to do with their 'smoking' habits; they're good people who happen to use a recreational drug. Now I know some who blatantly smoke out in the open or in public; that I consider a little tacky. Most people, however, who do smoke pot, seem to do it quietly, at home, no risk to anyone. Hell, even at parties, most of them will ask if anyone minds if they light up, they know not everyone approves.

-It's not for me, much prefer my caffeine. The gov't could legalize it, tax it, and put that money towards rehab for harder controlled substances and other things. Sounds like a winning situation to me.


Andrew


----------



## geezer (Jul 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Over my dead body.



At the snail's pace the movement to legalize pot is moving forward, it may well come to that... unless you plan to live a _very_ long time.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Pot is not harmless.  It destroys lives and health.  It is illegal in most locations of the US because the majority of citizens want it to be illegal, which is reason enough right there.



Pot is _not_ harmless, and it_ can_ mess up people's lives. And, I agree that historically speaking, a majority of people have supported the laws making it illegal. However, I don't know how much longer that will remain the case. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Medical marijuana, which I would otherwise be in favor of, has become *nothing more* than backdoor legalization for the recreational use of pot in California.



_"Nothing more"?_ For many, that may be true. But don't deny that there are others who support "medical marijuana" laws for what they were intended. Along with the majority of voters in my state, I've twice supported propositions to allow for "medical marijuana". I'm less certain about movements toward "de-criminalization" and still oppose outright legalization.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I remain against it.  Nothing will ever change my mind on this subject.



I can't fault you for your honesty, Bill. But you never know. You've changed my mind on a few particulars. For example, after thinking about it, I've come to accept that marijuana _can_ be a gateway drug. But it doesn't_ necessarily_ lead to using harder drugs or a messed up life. Just because you pass through one gate doesn't mean you have to go through the next.

For example, most of my friends and I illegally smoked our first cigarettes in junior high (gateway # 1). We moved on to drinking beer, then hard liquor. I came within a hair's breadth of dying from alcohol poisoning at age 15. Also damned near killed myself driving drunk at 16... and lost a total of three acquaintances to drunk driving (gateway #2). Later, I started "socially" smoking weed off and on (gateway #3) and finally, about the time I was finishing college, tried psilocybin mushrooms a couple of times, and peyote tea once (gateway #4). 

Then, I got serious, stopped using tobacco, weed, alcohol and anything else. I will enjoy an occasional beer or glass of wine with dinner, but never more than about twice a month, and never more than two. Most of my friends who I still keep in touch with have gone pretty much the same route. Interestingly, none died from drug use, but I've lost several adult friends to alcohol. Two were long-time alcoholics and died from the effects of their alcohol addiction. A third was another of my friends who died in a car wreck, driving drunk. Incidentally, I've also been hit by drunk drivers, _twice_. 

OK Bill, I believe that we each ultimately take the most stock in our own experiences. You once related yours in relation to marijuana use. Well my experiences have shown me that marijuana abuse can be destructive to one's person and family, and that it can be a gateway drug to harder stuff. But so can tobacco and alcohol. In fact both of those legal addictive drugs (yes, nicotine _is_ a drug) have killed people I know. _Alcohol_ damned near killed me on several occassions. Marijuana has not killed anyone I'm aware of... although the laws against it have messed up more than a few lives. And made a lot of criminals rich.

So based on my experiences, I don't have a problem if people choose to smoke pot, responsibly, moderately, and preferably at home. It's not my business. I'm too busy taking care of my family, my job, and _my martial arts addiction._


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jul 22, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Yo dude!
> 
> So like....
> 
> ...


 
I think we was talking about brownies, yeah that's it....mmmmm brownies...


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 22, 2009)

Huh?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 22, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Let's make everything that could possibly cause harm or endanger us illegal and completely do away with personal choice and responsibility. Would that make you happy, Bill?



Nope. The fact that marijuana is harmful is just my rebuttal to those who insist that it isn't.  They're wrong, that's all.



> Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to dictate to others whether they can or can not do something when whether they do it or not has no direct impact on your life and/or well-being. That's a freedom and a right we've lost sight of in the US. _"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." _



Actually, the fact that I - *and a whole bunch of fellow citizens* - don't like marijuana and want it to remain illegal is a perfectly good reason for it to be illegal.

*We do have the right to dictate to others what you can or cannot do*, as long as it does not conflict with your basic constitutional rights.  Life. Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness can take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut - they're not part of the Bill of Rights, and as such, the government can indeed infringe on your right to smoke a doobie.  And it does.  And the majority of citizens in the USA think that's a very good thing.

Too bad, so sad.  Majority rules when it comes to plebiscites.  We've been through all this before.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 22, 2009)

crushing said:


> Over your dead body is a very strong statement.  If it were legal, would you push for its prohibition?



Yep.



> If so, are you doing the same for alcohol and tobacco?



Nope. I don't have a problem with the legality of alcohol or tobacco.  This is not a discussion about alcohol or tobacco.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 22, 2009)

Satt said:


> I don't smoke and I probably never will, but I support people's right to smoke. The government needs to get back in their place and out of our personal lives. (I know this will never be the case though) I don't care what people choose to do even if it does destroy their lives as long as they don't affect anyone else's lives.



Wait until it destroys your family and tell me that.  I've been to hell with a family member who became an addict.  I can tell you haven't.  Like atheists in fox-holes, once you've seen a family member turning tricks on a street corner for drugs, you will change your tune.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 22, 2009)

JDenver said:


> One of the most hypocritical positions in North American society is that you can smoke and drink, but not do marijuana.



It is not about being hypocritical.  It's about what the citizens want.  Citizens want legal tobacco and alcohol.  They do not want legal marijuana.  That's that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 22, 2009)

geezer said:


> So based on my experiences, I don't have a problem if people choose to smoke pot, responsibly, moderately, and preferably at home. It's not my business. I'm too busy taking care of my family, my job, and _my martial arts addiction._



I'm hip (and I agree with your other statements too).

I do not run around telling people to stop smoking dope. I don't lie awake at night in bed worrying about it.

However, everyone is allowed to have an opinion, and mine remains that marijuana is dangerous, dealers are evil, and pot ought to remain illegal.  I will vote for it to remain illegal if it ever comes to my state (we have 'medical marijuana' now, passed by plebiscite last fall).  If it is raised as a Bill in the legislature, I'll trouble myself to call my representatives and ask them to vote against it.  Democracy in action.

If it becomes legal anyway, then that will be the law.  Again, I won't lose sleep over it.  But I'll still be against it.


----------



## Frostbite (Jul 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Wait until it destroys your family and tell me that.  I've been to hell with a family member who became an addict.  I can tell you haven't.  Like atheists in fox-holes, once you've seen a family member turning tricks on a street corner for drugs, you will change your tune.



Addicted to pot?  Psychologically maybe.  But people with addictive personalities will find something to be addicted to one way or another.  I'm of the opinion that drugs only enhance pre-existing behaviors in people.  If you're angry and start to drink, you're probably going to be an angry drunk.  If you're unmotivated and anti-social (like I suspect the person in your news article was), pot's just going to amplify that.

Fact is, plenty of people use pot and other drugs recreationally and are still able to lead productive lives.  That just makes for boring stories during family reunions and really poor television ratings.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I've been to hell with a family member who became an addict.  I can tell you haven't.



Well, I have.  My uncle destroyed his life, was responsible for the death of his son, and is dragging his mother down with him, all due to his addiction.  Of course, his drug of choice is and was alcohol, not pot.  I still enjoy the occasional beer, and don't want alcohol banned.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 22, 2009)

Frostbite said:


> Addicted to pot?  Psychologically maybe.  But people with addictive personalities will find something to be addicted to one way or another.  I'm of the opinion that drugs only enhance pre-existing behaviors in people.  If you're angry and start to drink, you're probably going to be an angry drunk.  If you're unmotivated and anti-social (like I suspect the person in your news article was), pot's just going to amplify that.
> 
> Fact is, plenty of people use pot and other drugs recreationally and are still able to lead productive lives.  That just makes for boring stories during family reunions and really poor television ratings.



You will sing a different tune when it happens to your family.  I hope to God it never does, it's not a curse I would put on anyone, friend or foe.


----------



## Frostbite (Jul 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You will sing a different tune when it happens to your family.  I hope to God it never does, it's not a curse I would put on anyone, friend or foe.



I come from a family of alcoholics and addicts.  It hasn't changed my opinion.  I'm able to see them for what they are, which is irresponsible and unable to control their impulses.  Even the ones who cleaned up, still suffer from the same problems, they just manifest in different ways.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 22, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Well, I have.  My uncle destroyed his life, was responsible for the death of his son, and is dragging his mother down with him, all due to his addiction.  Of course, his drug of choice is and was alcohol, not pot.  I still enjoy the occasional beer, and don't want alcohol banned.



With all due respect, and with respect for the pain you must have felt, you have not been where I have been.  I've seen things that would make you people throw up for days.  Jesus Christ would puke his guts up at what I've lived through.  I will never change my mind about pot.


----------



## geezer (Jul 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It is not about being hypocritical.  *It's about what the citizens want. * Citizens want legal tobacco and alcohol.  They do not want legal marijuana.  That's that.



I guess I pretty much agree. It's about what the citizens want. _Or should be._ In my state we, the electorate voted in favor of "medical marijuana"... twice. The first time the conservative legislature (unconstitutionally) balked and did not comply with the proposition, saying that the proposition was poorly worded and that the voters "were conned". So we, the electorate approved a second, more clearly worded measure in another election. _Then_ the legislature said that they couldn't implement the law for _other_ reasons, including the fact that federal law trumps state law. Since then, the issue has come up again, but I've given up on following it, since apparently my vote, at least at the state level, doesn't count. Besides, I don't use the stuff, or advocate its use. I just don't like the idea of government running peoples private lives.

So, Bill, what will you do, when and if the majority of voters decide to de-criminalize weed federally? If you really believe its about_ what the citizens want_, I guess you'll just deal with it, right?


----------



## Frostbite (Jul 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> *With all due respect*, and with respect for the pain you must have felt, you have not been where I have been.  I've seen things that would make you people throw up for days.  Jesus Christ would puke his guts up at what I've lived through.  I will never change my mind about pot.



Actually, I find this statement to show a complete lack of respect.  You presume that your life has been harder or your experiences worse than other peoples' without knowing anything about their own personal stories.

It sucks you've had some personal hardships and I respect your opinion about the legalization of drugs.  In my own case, I just recognized that the drugs weren't the culprit.  These people would've had problems no matter what they did.  I'm not saying drugs didn't make the problems worse but the problems were already there before the drugs came along.


----------



## terryl965 (Jul 22, 2009)

I do not smoke pot simply because I do not smoke. I drink because it is legal for the most part. My problem is this pot is the biggest drug in America and it can never be rid of, California give people tickets for it and send them on there way. One county in Cali. is the biggest growers of it and yet they still grow it, they also allow three plants per houshold. I just watched this on MSNBC the other night, they have shops that actually sell it and bag it for you, lets tax the crap out of it and be done with it.

P.S. just for pete sake here I do not believe in doing anything illegal but this is one law that needs to be changed so we can move on.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Wait until it destroys your family and tell me that.  I've been to hell with a family member who became an addict.  I can tell you haven't.  Like atheists in fox-holes, once you've seen a family member turning tricks on a street corner for drugs, you will change your tune.



Wait, what do atheists have to do with pot smoking?  Are you saying that a family member turning into a hooker would turn me religious or something?

Either way, an addictive personality is just that.  They would get their fix from some other substance or activity if it was not pot and still destroy anything in their way to get their fix.  You can't blame the gun for killing people and you can't blame the pot for someone being a hooker.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2009)

Here we've been watching closely what they've done in Portugal, I think it's too early to actually see how successful in the long run the decriminalisation of drugs is going to be but so far it seems to be good. I was watching a new report on BBC about it a couple of weeks ago.
 This was in 2000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/823257.stm

2009
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Nope. The fact that marijuana is harmful is just my rebuttal to those who insist that it isn't. They're wrong, that's all.


 
Fair enough.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Actually, the fact that I - *and a whole bunch of fellow citizens* - don't like marijuana and want it to remain illegal is a perfectly good reason for it to be illegal.


 
Question: When the government, citing similar reasons for why marijuana is illegal, outlaws certain foods and dictates what you can and can not eat will you feel the same way? 

I'm not being sarcastic. If we end up with government run health care I guarantee it will happen. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> *We do have the right to dictate to others what you can or cannot do*, as long as it does not conflict with your basic constitutional rights. Life. Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness can take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut - they're not part of the Bill of Rights, and as such, the government can indeed infringe on your right to smoke a doobie. And it does. And the majority of citizens in the USA think that's a very good thing.


 
That's not the "American Way." 

There are *TWO* important documents in regards to the founding of this country and the principles held by our founding fathers. 

You recognize the Constitution but seemingly disrespect the Declaration of Independence. Most scholars consider the Declaration of Independence the "promise" and the Constitution as the "fullfillment" of that promise. 

"The Declaration of Independence is the declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man." -Thomas Jefferson

Yeah...so you think this basic principle can take a flying leap then? 


> We hold these Truths to be self-evident,
> that all Men are created equal, that they are
> endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and​the pursuit of Happiness.


 
 


Bill Mattocks said:


> Too bad, so sad. Majority rules when it comes to plebiscites. We've been through all this before.


 
Majority rules with minority rights. We do still somewhat resemble the US of old... 




Bill Mattocks said:


> Nope. I don't have a problem with the legality of alcohol or tobacco. This is not a discussion about alcohol or tobacco.


 
Isn't it? 

It is extremely hypocritical to endorse the one but not the other. Especially based on the reasons you've cited as "accurate." 

It seems to me you've been a tad influenced by the propoganda machine. Many of the things you cite as the dangers of using marijuana are actually myths that have been scientifically disproved. 

Feel free to read the facts. Resources are cited:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#gatewayhttp://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#gateway


----------



## Omar B (Jul 22, 2009)

This or that being a gateway drug means nothing.  An addictive personality loves to get high and will always want to be more high, it's a flaw in the person, not in the law or with the drug.  In college my friends and I did everything you could think of recreationally, non of us got addicted, nor did anything affect grades or stop anyone from graduating on time.  I see no problem with it at all, smoke some, do a line, whatever, if it's on the weekend and you wanna party and blow off some steam.  It being illegal just causes honest people to have to mixd with a criminal element and feeds criminals with cash that should be going into taxes just like smokes and alchohol.


----------



## blindsage (Jul 22, 2009)

I don't smoke anything, never have, never will.  I don't drink alchohol, never have, never will.  I don't approve of, or condone smoking pot, tobacco, or anything else.  I don't approve or condone the consumption of alchohol.  But I also don't approve of hypocrisy.  Whether the use of alchohol or tobacco is legal _IS _directly relevant to whether or not pot should be legal.  Overall alcohol and tobacco are MUCH more destructive drug than pot is.  Despite anyone's individual personal experience, the evidence is overwhelming.  IF alchohol and tobacco are legal then there is little rational or moral reasoning that can defend the illegality of marijuana.  

Just saying 'the majority don't like it so that's it' is not relevant to the discussion of whether or not it _should_ be legal.  The point of discussion and debate is an exchange of ideas, the only way for people to sway others perspectives is through evidence and debate.  And the perpsective on pot and it's legality has been steadily changing over the last 40 years towards making it legal.  So when, and it is only a matter of time, the majority of opinion sways in favor of legality, where does that leave the 'I don't like and neither does the majority and that's all that matters' argument?


----------



## crushing (Jul 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I don't have a problem with the legality of alcohol or tobacco.  This is not a discussion about alcohol or tobacco.



The comparison was made in the article you used to support your case for continued prohibition.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 22, 2009)

This info is purely from friends and acquaintances, mind you.
(1) Once high, you know all, but ambition level is gone.
(2) Once high, you will eat anything, in any combination.
(3) Once high, you can't function well with non high people.
(4) Once high, you can become very paranoid over trivial things.
(5) Once high, the whole world is going 35 miles per hour, while you think you are keeping up, but really doing only about 5 miles per hour. But your ok with that.
(6) Once high, you act weird, but think you are doing ok, but in reality you don't gave a crap anyway. 
(7) With all this said, I feel that over time it will ruin your health, and change your mental outlook on life.

Last but not least, if you ever have children, the last thing you would ever do, is tell them about smoking pot, for fear they would become the lazy bums we all know it will entice you to be.


----------



## Carol (Jul 22, 2009)

Personally I think cigarettes and alcohol both have risks.  They are not harmless.

Cannabis isn't harmless either.  Since legalization will logically result in an increase of consumption, why encourage more trouble?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 22, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Since legalization will logically result in an increase of consumption, why encourage more trouble?



Because we already have plenty of trouble.  The black market in marijuana due to prohibition costs us every year in arrests, prison terms, crime, degradation of civil liberties, etc.  The War on (Some) Drugs is the worst thing that has happened to our liberties in a long, long time.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 22, 2009)

Not to mention useless, we pay for imprisoning the old dealers while it creates a market for new ones.


----------



## Ronin74 (Jul 22, 2009)

I'm not saying I'm for or against the legalization of marijuana. However, if it were to happen on a grander scale (I'm from San Francisco... lol), I'd hope that there would be restrictions for safety's sake, such as the ones that apply to alcohol, like being drunk in public or driving while intoxicated. I once drove a car where my older cousins were all high, and as annoying as I found it (I really can't stand the smell- I think it smells like $#!+), I don't think I would've wanted to take the risk of letting them behind the wheel.

As far as it's legalization helping to curb drug-related crime, and lessen the amount of $ used to tend to anyone locked-up for dealing, I wouldn't call it a bad idea, but again, with restrictions.


----------



## searcher (Jul 22, 2009)

Not to mention that I don't want my family exposed to "contact highs" that it would produce.

If it is legal, then I want to be able to legally kick the crap out of people who are doing it.    You want the problem to go away?    Start executing drug dealers.    I have several in my own family that you can start with.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 22, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> You recognize the Constitution but seemingly disrespect the Declaration of Independence. Most scholars consider the Declaration of Independence the "promise" and the Constitution as the "fullfillment" of that promise.
> 
> "The Declaration of Independence is the declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man." -Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Yeah...so you think this basic principle can take a flying leap then?



When one cites 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' as the basis for their argument that this substance or that behavior should be legal, one ignores the most basic counter-argument; that there is no objective standard.

The right to life?  We put people to death all the time.  With due process, of course, but we do indeed deprive them of a basic and fundamental right.

The right to liberty?  Everyone in prison is denied this basic right.

The right to 'pursue happiness'?  Well, someone tell me what that covers and what it does not.  What, there is no objective list?  Well, bugger me.  Whoops, that's probably a 'pursuit' for some people too.

Those are very generic and general terms, meant to state the over-arching condition of man as it ought to be.  The Declaration even goes so far as to state that these rights are fundamental for ALL men, not just (what would become) US citizens.  How does the US protect the rights to life, liberty, etc, to citizens of other countries who live in those self-same countries?

The rights the government may not abrogate are listed in the Amendments.  All other rights, they may indeed abrogate, and do on a regular basis.

You and I may agree that the government (state, federal, etc) frequently goes too far in that respect, but every citizen has a different idea of where the line ought to be drawn.  Some would say no to helmet laws, some would say yes to them.  Some would say no to minimum drinking age, some would say yes.

The fact is that in most US states, the recreational use of marijuana is prohibited.  Polls continue to show that the majority of citizens do not want marijuana to be legal for recreational use.

My argument is that this is a good enough reason to ban it.  While you may argue that your right to smoke a jay is infringed by bans on dope-smoking, I might argue that this is not an onerous infringement on your vital liberties.


----------



## Ronin74 (Jul 22, 2009)

searcher said:


> Not to mention that I don't want my family exposed to "contact highs" that it would produce.
> 
> If it is legal, then I want to be able to legally kick the crap out of people who are doing it. You want the problem to go away? Start executing drug dealers. I have several in my own family that you can start with.


As funny as I might have found this response, I'd be lying if I said a part of me didn't agree with you.

Referencing my previous post, I don't have anything against it being done in cannabis clubs or in a person's own house, but once it's outside or in a place where it can affect others, then that's where I find a problem. If my neighbors smoked pot IN their house, I wouldn't give a damn. However, if it brought around some riff-raff into the neighborhood, or the smoke was creeping into my house, then I think I should have the right to do something about it.

Still though, there is a sense of "problem solved" if dealers were executed. I know some would try to justify dealing it as the only source of income they could come across, but I never understood why a person would opt for dealing when there are entry-level jobs that could provide, and do it legally.


----------



## Satt (Jul 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Wait until it destroys your family and tell me that.  I've been to hell with a family member who became an addict.  I can tell you haven't.  Like atheists in fox-holes, once you've seen a family member turning tricks on a street corner for drugs, you will change your tune.




LOL I assume you are talking about when it progresses past the weed phase. I have known SEVERAL people who did and do smoke and they have been fine. I have NEVER heard of anyone "turning tricks" for weed. If you mean after weed and they have started something else, then yes, I understand.


----------



## jim777 (Jul 23, 2009)

It's going to be legalized in a few places in the US relativelty soon. I would guess it will totally legal in a few States in the next 6 years or so. It has been shown to not be a gateway drug, with the author of one study saying, "The emphasis on the drugs themselves, rather than other, more important factors that shape a persons behavior, has been detrimental to drug policy and prevention programs. (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html) (On a note here - when I accessed this page there was an ad in it from a group called "DrugFreeWorld.org", which is in fact the Church of Scientology) The president has said he won't use the DEA to impose federal law in places state law differs from federal law, and momentum for legalization is growing.
The American College of Physicians is calling for more research, and hopefully that will happen.
A recent poll showed 52% of Americans for legalization and taxation, 11% 'not sure' and only 37% against. Legalization of marijuana in the US is coming.


----------



## MJS (Jul 23, 2009)

Satt said:


> LOL I assume you are talking about when it progresses past the weed phase. I have known SEVERAL people who did and do smoke and they have been fine. I have NEVER heard of anyone "turning tricks" for weed. If you mean after weed and they have started something else, then yes, I understand.


 
I'm not going to speak for Bill, but I think this is what he may be saying....if you have an addiction, a strong addiction, be it to pot, crack, coke, alcohol or sex, if that addiction is stronger than the person having it, it could take control of that person, making them do things, that are illegal, ie: steal, robbery, etc. to get the cash to support that habit.  

So, while 'turning tricks' may not, although one never knows, be what someone does to get cash, as I said, it could drive you to do those things or things of that nature.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 23, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Personally I think cigarettes and alcohol both have risks. They are not harmless.
> 
> Cannabis isn't harmless either. Since legalization will logically result in an increase of consumption, why encourage more trouble?


 
Everything on the planet contains some risk and causes harm...including sunlight.  

Are you sure it would result in an increase in consumption? Today, the drug of choice is pain-killers for young people. It gets them high without having to smoke...and they're free...right in mommy and daddy's medicine cabinet. Why pay for what you can get for free? Or at least what their insurance pays for...gee...wonder how that will be affected by Universal Health care?...hmmmmm...

Right now the government dictates what "drugs" are legal and which one's are illegal. (_details on the how's, why's, and classifications available at the link I posted further back_.) Just because Phizer provided huge kick-backs to Joe Congressman their drugs are legal. I guess if Cheech and Chong would give Uncle Sam a larger cut things might be different. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> When one cites 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' as the basis for their argument that this substance or that behavior should be legal, one ignores the most basic counter-argument; that there is no objective standard.


 
Isn't there? How about you have the right to do whatever you damn well please as long you aren't causing me any harm? 



Bill Mattocks said:


> The right to life? We put people to death all the time. With due process, of course, but we do indeed deprive them of a basic and fundamental right.
> 
> The right to liberty? Everyone in prison is denied this basic right.


 
When you commit murder or other serious crimes you no longer have those rights. I thought that was common knowledge? Your argument, which uses prisoners as an example, is moot. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> The right to 'pursue happiness'? Well, someone tell me what that covers and what it does not. What, there is no objective list? Well, bugger me. Whoops, that's probably a 'pursuit' for some people too.


 
What makes me happy is different than what may make you happy. In the simplest terms: You can do whatever makes you happy as long as you do not cause harm to another. If cutting yourself makes you happy...cut away. If cutting other peoeple makes you happy...then you can't do it...unless they like it too. LOL ... get it?  It doesn't matter if you find this act distatseful on a personal level...it's nunya. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Those are very generic and general terms, meant to state the over-arching condition of man as it ought to be. The Declaration even goes so far as to state that these rights are fundamental for ALL men, not just (what would become) US citizens. How does the US protect the rights to life, liberty, etc, to citizens of other countries who live in those self-same countries?


 
The idea of "liberty" is abstract. There's no universal list of what is acceptable and what is not in terms of what makes someone happy. 

In recent history, the US has done a pretty crappy job of protecting those rights IMHO. And anytime we do try to use it as an excuse to "help" out another country we are usually dubbed as being Imperialistic and/or Empire Builders. 

I personally think we should focus on straightening up our own back yard before we try to tell others what to do with theirs. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> The rights the government may not abrogate are listed in the Amendments. All other rights, they may indeed abrogate, and do on a regular basis.


 
How about numero 10 then? They seem to stomp on that one quite a bit, especially in regard to this topic. 

Also, considering 18 and 21...well...:erg:



Bill Mattocks said:


> You and I may agree that the government (state, federal, etc) frequently goes too far in that respect, but every citizen has a different idea of where the line ought to be drawn. Some would say no to helmet laws, some would say yes to them. Some would say no to minimum drinking age, some would say yes.


 
What seems to continue to get lost in the shuffle is the fact that we are supposed to have power over our own lives. 

If you don't want to wear a helmet...why should it matter to me? It's your head...do with it what you like. As long as you're not head-butting me in the nose with it...It's nunya. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> The fact is that in most US states, the recreational use of marijuana is prohibited. Polls continue to show that the majority of citizens do not want marijuana to be legal for recreational use.
> 
> My argument is that this is a good enough reason to ban it. While you may argue that your right to smoke a jay is infringed by bans on dope-smoking, I might argue that this is not an onerous infringement on your vital liberties.


 
Any law that prohibits a behavior or action based on the whim of another violates the concept of liberty. Laws were created to protect, not inhibit acts that do no harm to another. 

It's as simple as the Golden Rule really. You don't want me sticking my nose in your business, so don't stick yours in mine. I'll go out on a limb here and admit that I actually have issues with obese people. I do, it's true. My personal feelings aside, it's none of my business if they want to eat 20 cheeseburgers and sit on the couch all day. It's also nunya if some goober wants to smoke a spliff and watch sit-coms all day. As long as they aren't forcing cheesburgers and joints down *my* throat, it really doesn't matter. They're happy....I'm happy, everybody's happy. It's called LIBERTY. :idea:

I'm also curious to see how you address the scientific and medical facts listed at the link I posted further back.

I'd also like your $0.02 on the question regarding the hypocrisy of condoning the use of tobacco and alcohol while vehemently arguing against the use of marijuana.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 23, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> What seems to continue to get lost in the shuffle is the fact that we are supposed to have power over our own lives.
> 
> If you don't want to wear a helmet...why should it matter to me? It's your head...do with it what you like. As long as you're not head-butting me in the nose with it...It's nunya.



That's a fine libertarian approach, but it is not how the law works, is it?

I'm more interested in what is than in what should be or could be as it pertains to legalization of marijuana.  The fact is that it is illegal for recreational use in most places, the public supports that, and that is a perfectly valid reason for it.



> Any law that prohibits a behavior or action based on the whim of another violates the concept of liberty. Laws were created to protect, not inhibit acts that do no harm to another.



No, that is not true.  Laws were created to protect the public safety and maintain civil order first.  Our rights were protected in the Bill of Rights for the purpose you mentioned above.  However, our rights are not absolute.



> It's as simple as the Golden Rule really. You don't want me sticking my nose in your business, so don't stick yours in mine. I'll go out on a limb here and admit that I actually have issues with obese people. I do, it's true. My personal feelings aside, it's none of my business if they want to eat 20 cheeseburgers and sit on the couch all day. It's also nunya if some goober wants to smoke a spliff and watch sit-coms all day. As long as they aren't forcing cheesburgers and joints down *my* throat, it really doesn't matter. They're happy....I'm happy, everybody's happy. It's called LIBERTY. :idea:



It's a fine model, but it is not reality.  You're describing how you think things ought to be.  Great, but that's not how they are.



> I'm also curious to see how you address the scientific and medical facts listed at the link I posted further back.



I'm not going to address the 'facts' you posted links to.  I have mine that say the opposite.  You'd poo-poo them, just as I poo-poo yours, so stalemate.  In point of fact, however, I don't care how many studies say marijuana helps a body grow strong twelve ways and gives you a larger phallum bway-bway in the bargain.  I am against it, and I will always be against it.



> I'd also like your $0.02 on the question regarding the hypocrisy of condoning the use of tobacco and alcohol while vehemently arguing against the use of marijuana.



Good, I'm glad you brought that up.

Hypocrisy, is it?

If I say I like ketchup but not mustard, am I a hypocrite?  They're both condiments, right?  It would be hypocrisy if I based my judgment on the dangers each poses to human health.  But that is not my basis.  My basis is that *I like* ketchup and *I don't like* mustard.  End of story, that's the whole thing.  There is no hypocrisy present.  It's called an opinion, and everybody gets one.  You cannot be a hypocrite for having a personal bias - and we all have personal biases.

I do not have a problem with tobacco, and I don't have a problem with alcohol.  I do have a problem with marijuana.  I do not base my assessment on the relative dangers present, I base my assessment on my experiences, my observations, and my gut feelings.  It all comes together to inform my opinion, and my opinion is what it is.

But since we are talking about hypocrisy, let's go there.

I take the 'anti' side of the marijuana debate, and in doing so, I am called a hypocrite because I do not take the same strong stance against tobacco or alcohol.  However, neither tobacco nor alcohol are illegal.

Now, you can argue, as many do, that IF pot was legal, THEN it would not be any different than tobacco or alcohol, so therefore my position would logically have to change.

However; first, pot is NOT legal.  So wish on, but illegal is illegal.  I take the side of law and order, and those who argue in favor of using from the point of view of being pot-smokers themselves are not on the side of law and order.  And I'm the one who is wrong?

Second, and I am speaking only to those who are currently recreational marijuana smokers in places where it is illegal, like the USA, I am not directly complicit in murder; you are.

I can draw a bright shining line from the casual pot smoker to his dealer to his distributor to the smuggler to the grower, and along the way, there is murder and mayhem on a scale that boggles the mind.  The casual pot smoker may argue that his drug does no harm.  Perhaps not to him.  But unless he is growing it himself and never buys it on the street, he is directly supporting an industry that kills people on a regular basis as part of its method of operation.

I know the average pot smoker doesn't want to think about that, and I know that the standard counter argument is that if pot were legal, this would not happen. Yes, perhaps that is true, but pot is NOT legal, and this DOES happen, and if you buy pot from illicit sources, YOU are directly responsible for murders that happen as due course to bring you your illegal drug.  YOU are a killer, not me.

*And I'm the hypocrite?*

I think not.

I work hard, pay my taxes, obey the law, and live a decent life.  I don't want to smoke pot, legal or not.  I don't like pot and I don't like what pot does to people. I won't tolerate it in my presence.  I'll vote against legalization any time it appears on a ballot, and I'll contact my elected representatives to urge them to vote against it as well.  These are all the acts of a law-abiding person.  And somehow, that makes ME the bad guy?

The recreational dope-smokers of the USA are supporting terrorists and murderers with their money.  And they stand up righteously and tell me how pot ought to be legal so they would not have to be murderers-by-proxy anymore.  Hmmm.

Pot is a vice, like booze, like tobacco, like any other mind-altering substance.  It's not a necessity (legal use for legitimate medical relief of pain not included).  It is not a requirement.  It's not the staff of life.  No one is being denied food on their table, a roof over their heads.  In an ideal libertarian world, of course it would be legal - so would heroin.  I'm not an ideal libertarian, and I'm against it.  It is 'like' tobacco and alcohol as a mind-altering substance, but in my opinion, it is much, much, more dangerous.

Most of you would agree that drugs like crack and heroin ought to remain illegal for casual recreational use.  I just include marijuana in that list.  That's really not so different from most of you, it is a difference of degree only.

Hypocrite?  No.  And recreational pot-smokers dare not look me in the eye and tell me that, given that they directly participate in murders done on their behalf.  Hypocrite indeed.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's a fine libertarian approach, but it is not how the law works, is it?


 
No, and it's another example of how it's "broken". This discussion is about whether or not it *SHOULD* be legalized and why.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm more interested in what is than in what should be or could be as it pertains to legalization of marijuana. The fact is that it is illegal for recreational use in most places, the public supports that, and that is a perfectly valid reason for it.


 
Not when that reason is contrary to other substances that are indeed legal. If the law is to be fair, it must apply equally to all things related. No? 




Bill Mattocks said:


> No, that is not true. Laws were created to protect the public safety and maintain civil order first. Our rights *were* protected in the Bill of Rights for the purpose you mentioned above. However, our rights are not absolute.


 
"Were"? Past tense? Freudian slip? LOL

Perhaps not absolute, but unalienable. Unfortunatley, many have indeed been taken away over the slow process of time. 

And yes, it is true. You're simply rewording what I posted. Nowhere has it been determined or proven that smoking pot endangers public safety or threatens civil order. It's a personal choice and if you use the argument that it cause health problems, ad nauseum...the same argument applies to those that eat cheesburgers. Bottom line, if you tell me I can't smoke a J, then I can reciprocate and tell you that you can't have a cheesburger. As ridiculous as that sounds, that is the way we've headed. Denying it doesn't change it. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> It's a fine model, but it is not reality. You're describing how you think things ought to be. Great, but that's not how they are.


 
No, I'm describing the principles and model our country was established on. And you're right...it's not how things are and that's why I have a problem with it. If I wanted less liberty I'd move to another country, but that's what American is _supposed_ to be about. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not going to address the 'facts' you posted links to. I have mine that say the opposite. You'd poo-poo them, just as I poo-poo yours, so stalemate. In point of fact, however, I don't care how many studies say marijuana helps a body grow strong twelve ways and gives you a larger phallum bway-bway in the bargain. I am against it, and I will always be against it.


 
Did I miss your link to your "facts"? 




Bill Mattocks said:


> Good, I'm glad you brought that up.
> 
> Hypocrisy, is it?
> 
> If I say I like ketchup but not mustard, am I a hypocrite? They're both condiments, right? It would be hypocrisy if I based my judgment on the dangers each poses to human health. But that is not my basis. My basis is that *I like* ketchup and *I don't like* mustard. End of story, that's the whole thing. There is no hypocrisy present. It's called an opinion, and everybody gets one. You cannot be a hypocrite for having a personal bias - and we all have personal biases.


 
It *is* hypocrisy when you try to tell me it's illegal for me to use mustard just because you don't like it. 

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're *not entitled* to try and force everyone else to live by it. That's where you are wrong. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I do not have a problem with tobacco, and I don't have a problem with alcohol. I do have a problem with marijuana. I do not base my assessment on the relative dangers present, I base my assessment on my experiences, my observations, and my gut feelings. It all comes together to inform my opinion, and my opinion is what it is.


 
Again, you're entitled to hate marijuana as much as you like but not entitled to *force* everyone else to not use it. Opionions as well as experiences vary. Facts do not. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> But since we are talking about hypocrisy, let's go there.
> 
> I take the 'anti' side of the marijuana debate, and in doing so, I am called a hypocrite because I do not take the same strong stance against tobacco or alcohol. However, neither tobacco nor alcohol are illegal.


 
You're entitled to take any stance you like. But when you cite the reasons for keeping it illegal, and those reasons are equally applicable to substances you endorese, then you then appear to be a hypocrite. You don't see that? 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Now, you can argue, as many do, that IF pot was legal, THEN it would not be any different than tobacco or alcohol, so therefore my position would logically have to change.


 
You'd think that you'd at least have to recognize that the dangers are at least the same. 

You do know that it was legal in the past right? Did you know that Jefferson prefered it to tobacco? I thought that was an intersting tid-bit...

But anyway...please continue. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> However; first, pot is NOT legal. So wish on, but illegal is illegal. I take the side of law and order, and those who argue in favor of using from the point of view of being pot-smokers themselves are not on the side of law and order. And I'm the one who is wrong?


 
Not the point and not the topic of discussion. Should it be legal? It was legal before...actually at one point the law required so much of one's property be dedicated to growing it. Wierd, huh? 

By that logic those who break the speed limit are not on the side of law and order either. 

And no, you're not necessarily wrong but you haven't done a great job of arguing against it. Especially when the reasons you cite can just as easily apply to tobacco and alcohol. Do you support making those substance, even caffeine, _illegal?_ That's where you appear to be hypocritical. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Second, and I am speaking only to those who are currently recreational marijuana smokers in places where it is illegal, like the USA, I am not directly complicit in murder; you are.
> 
> I can draw a bright shining line from the casual pot smoker to his dealer to his distributor to the smuggler to the grower, and along the way, there is murder and mayhem on a scale that boggles the mind. The casual pot smoker may argue that his drug does no harm. Perhaps not to him. But unless he is growing it himself and never buys it on the street, he is directly supporting an industry that kills people on a regular basis as part of its method of operation.


 
*Exactly!* The fact that it's illegal perpetuates that "black" market and those additional crimes!!! :duh:

The act of smoking it is not the crime. You can not blame the smoker for the deaths caused by the "drug lords" engaged in warring over who gets to sell it. By that logic, we should blame the government for making it illegal and therefore establishing the environment that produces and perpetuates the existance of "drug lords" and associated crimes!!! 

And what about some hill-billy that grows it for personal use? Who are they harming? 




Bill Mattocks said:


> I know the average pot smoker doesn't want to think about that, and I know that the standard counter argument is that if pot were legal, this would not happen. Yes, perhaps that is true, but pot is NOT legal, and this DOES happen, and if you buy pot from illicit sources, YOU are directly responsible for murders that happen as due course to bring you your illegal drug. YOU are a killer, not me.


 
I could easily argue that you are responsible because you support it being illegal and YOU are a killer. 

I could also argue that you are a killer because you allow alcohol and tobacco to be legal! People die from using those substances every day. 

I could also argue that you are a killer because you allow people to eat fatty foods. 

All those arguments are ridiculous, including yours. That is, unless you are against Liberty and Freedom. If you are against individual choice and responsibility then you may well be within your rights to make that argument. Perhaps that is where we differ. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> *And I'm the hypocrite?*
> 
> I think not.


 
Pehaps...but definatley unfair when allowing personal opinion to be the your yardstick instead of the facts. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I work hard, pay my taxes, obey the law, and live a decent life. I don't want to smoke pot, legal or not. I don't like pot and I don't like what pot does to people. I won't tolerate it in my presence. I'll vote against legalization any time it appears on a ballot, and I'll contact my elected representatives to urge them to vote against it as well. These are all the acts of a law-abiding person. And somehow, that makes ME the bad guy?


 
It's a free...well still relatively free...country. When it comes up on the ballot to make cheesburgers illegal I may consider doing the same. I would hope that logic and reason would prevail; however, and I would take into consideration that people that eat cheesburgers are not a danger to me. 

I wouldn't say you're a bad guy, just mislead and close-minded. I actually respect your stance, but have yet to see any real evidence or legitimate argument against decriminalizing marijuana from you or anyone else. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> The recreational dope-smokers of the USA are supporting terrorists and murderers with their money. And they stand up righteously and tell me how pot ought to be legal so they would not have to be murderers-by-proxy anymore. Hmmm.


 
Again...not a valid argument as pointed out above. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Pot is a vice, like booze, like tobacco, like any other mind-altering substance. It's not a necessity (legal use for legitimate medical relief of pain not included). It is not a requirement. It's not the staff of life. No one is being denied food on their table, a roof over their heads. In an ideal libertarian world, of course it would be legal - so would heroin. I'm not an ideal libertarian, and I'm against it. It is 'like' tobacco and alcohol as a mind-altering substance, but in my opinion, it is much, much, more dangerous.


 
You're dead wrong about marijuana being more dangerous than tobacco and especially alcohol. Facts, facts, facts...where are the facts? I believe I posted a link to some....

Anyway, you're getting warmer hitting on "vice." In a *free* society you do not have to partake of any vice, but you would have the freedom to do so if you liked. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Most of you would agree that drugs like crack and heroin ought to remain illegal for casual recreational use. I just include marijuana in that list. That's really not so different from most of you, it is a difference of degree only.


 
Wrong again. Marijuana is not a narcotic. Marijuana is not the same classification of drug as crack and/or heroin....where's that link again? LOL

BTW...did you know that codeine is actually the most commonly used drug today according to the World Health Organization? 

It's an opiate and what is the principle ingrediant in drugs like vicodine and/or hydrocodone. It's what little Johnny and Susy prefer these days. It is a narcotic. 

Closely behind that is another opiate derivitive, oxycotten. Got any idea how many folks go to rehab for this every year? Oh...and they get it "legally" too. 

Less than 1% of Americans smoke pot regularly. 

So...exactly what "drug" should you be advocating making illegal again? 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Hypocrite? No. And recreational pot-smokers dare not look me in the eye and tell me that, given that they directly participate in murders done on their behalf. Hypocrite indeed.


 
According to your logic, we all pretty much participate in murders. We should be ashamed of ourselves...

And for the record...No, I'm not a pot smoker.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 23, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> No, and it's another example of how it's "broken". This discussion is about whether or not it *SHOULD* be legalized and why.



And I am of the opinion that it should not be legalized, and my reason is because I am against it - no other reason necessary.



> Not when that reason is contrary to other substances that are indeed legal. If the law is to be fair, it must apply equally to all things related. No?



No, not at all.  The law does not treat like things equally, nor does it have to.  Justice is supposed to establish fair treatment for the same crimes - not fair crimes for similar actions.



> And yes, it is true. You're simply rewording what I posted. Nowhere has it been determined or proven that smoking pot endangers public safety or threatens civil order. It's a personal choice and if you use the argument that it cause health problems, ad nauseum...the same argument applies to those that eat cheesburgers. Bottom line, if you tell me I can't smoke a J, then I can reciprocate and tell you that you can't have a cheesburger. As ridiculous as that sounds, that is the way we've headed. Denying it doesn't change it.



*I* cannot deny you anything - I am not the lawgiver.  Society can, and does.  If society chose to make cheeseburgers illegal, then that would be the law.



> No, I'm describing the principles and model our country was established on. And you're right...it's not how things are and that's why I have a problem with it. If I wanted less liberty I'd move to another country, but that's what American is _supposed_ to be about.



I can't deny that, but it's not germane to the discussion at hand.



> Did I miss your link to your "facts"?



No, because I didn't post it.  There is no reason to do so.  You won't believe my 'facts' any more than I'll believe yours.  Studies on both sides of the argument are guaranteed to be rejected out of hand by those who hold contrary opinions, so I won't bother you with mine.



> It *is* hypocrisy when you try to tell me it's illegal for me to use mustard just because you don't like it.



No, not at all.  Again, *I* am not the lawgiver.  But if society wants to pass a law that makes mustard illegal JUST because they don't like it, then that's the way it is.  Gay Marriage in California ring a bell?  The citizens shot it down - just because they don't like it.  People on both sides of that argument are likewise uninterested in studies pointing to the pros or cons of gay marriage - they're either for it or against it for very personal reasons - and when it goes to the polls as a plebiscite, the majority wins and that is indeed the law of that state.



> You're entitled to your opinion, but you're *not entitled* to try and force everyone else to live by it. That's where you are wrong.



Yes, I am entitled to try to force my opinion on everyone else.  And you are likewise entitled to try to force your opinion on everyone too.  This is exactly what happens when people go to the polls and vote on initiatives, ballot measures, constitutional modifications, and other plebiscites.  There is nothing that requires any citizen to have logic or science or public sentiment as their backing - they vote their conscience and that is good enough.  We are a representative republic, but we have aspects of direct democracy built into our systems, and this is one of them.  We are indeed free to attempt to enforce our biased, flawed, emotional, and logic-less opinions on everybody else.



> Again, you're entitled to hate marijuana as much as you like but not entitled to *force* everyone else to not use it. Opionions as well as experiences vary. Facts do not.



The fact is that marijuana is illegal for recreational use in most of the USA.  The fact is that the people appear to prefer it to remain that way.  Those are facts.  There are no laws that require public opinion to adhere to the results of studies, nor are there any laws that prevent people from voting their opinion and nothing else.

Studies - pro and con - are not facts.  They are studies.  They are valid means to attempt to reach a conclusion about the 'truth' but they are not facts in an of themselves.  Even if they were - we as citizens are still free to absolutely reject them and hold contrary opinions anyway.  That's life.



> You're entitled to take any stance you like. But when you cite the reasons for keeping it illegal, and those reasons are equally applicable to substances you endorese, then you then appear to be a hypocrite. You don't see that?



Sure, which is why I do not cite the dangers of marijuana as the REASON that I hold my anti-marijuana opinion.  It is just something I also happen to believe.  My basis for disliking marijuana and wanting it to remain illegal is personal, which I have said repeatedly.  It isn't based on fact or logic and it doesn't have to be.  I have a bias.   So do you.  That is not hypocrisy.  Live with it.



> You'd think that you'd at least have to recognize that the dangers are at least the same.



I do not agree.



> You do know that it was legal in the past right? Did you know that Jefferson prefered it to tobacco? I thought that was an intersting tid-bit...



Misquotes and half-truths.  I've read the quotes, and I've read the statements debunking those statements.  You can believe what you like.



> Not the point and not the topic of discussion. Should it be legal? It was legal before...actually at one point the law required so much of one's property be dedicated to growing it. Wierd, huh?



The laws requiring it to be grown pertained to hemp, which is indeed cannabis, but without THC.  It was not grown to smoke but to make rope, cloth, and paper.  That's a misleading half-truth in the way it is commonly used by pro-weed people.

Many illicit drugs were at one time legal, like LSD and cocaine and so on.  So what?  They're illegal now and I'm glad of it.



> By that logic those who break the speed limit are not on the side of law and order either.



Not if they are arguing for or against speed limits.  I am a law-abiding citizen in that I (and you too apparently) do not smoke pot; so when I make my argument, I do so as a law-abiding citizen.  Those who argue against me who also smoke pot illicitly are not law-abiding.  That's their choice, but I have to laugh at the idea of criminals pointing out my flaws.  As far as morality goes, I hold the high ground in this debate.



> And no, you're not necessarily wrong but you haven't done a great job of arguing against it. Especially when the reasons you cite can just as easily apply to tobacco and alcohol. Do you support making those substance, even caffeine, _illegal?_ That's where you appear to be hypocritical.



No, I do not support making them illegal.  As I have said repeatedly, which you appear either not to get or not to want to get, I am not using the argument that pot is injurious to health as the basis for my opinion.  If I were, then I would agree that it would be hypocritical for me to be against one and not against all.

However, I should point out that the entire line of reasoning you're using is flawed, because it can be applied to ANYONE in ANY argument.  If you're against abortion, you'd better be against capital punishment.  It is very easy to make any comparison and claim the person is a hypocrite if they don't also support (or are against) x, y, or z.  It's used as a distraction and does not go toward the argument at hand.



> The act of smoking it is not the crime. You can not blame the smoker for the deaths caused by the "drug lords" engaged in warring over who gets to sell it. By that logic, we should blame the government for making it illegal and therefore establishing the environment that produces and perpetuates the existance of "drug lords" and associated crimes!!!



Yes, I can indeed blame the pot smokers.  They make the choice to engage in the illegal behavior, knowing that it is illegal, and knowing (as everyone must by now) that the drug lords that bring it to them engage in these crimes.  That is a direct, bright, shining line of culpability, just like knowingly buying stolen property ties you to the thief, but the fact that the government makes stealing illegal does not transfer blame to the government.

The government did not make anyone choose to engage in illicit behavior.  The responsibility is on the heads of the pot-smokers, dealers, and others in the direct line of the pot from grower to smoker.



> And what about some hill-billy that grows it for personal use? Who are they harming?



I presume he is harming no one.  I was careful in my choice of words.



> I could easily argue that you are responsible because you support it being illegal and YOU are a killer.



You could argue it, but your argument is weak and specious.  Would I then be culpable for pedophiles engaging in the sex trade and resulting harm to minors because I am in favor of laws prohibiting such behavior?  No.  The person who knowingly breaks the law bears the responsibility for their actions and for those actions which any reasonable person would or should know were caused by that action.  They are an accessory after the fact of the murders and so on.



> I could also argue that you are a killer because you allow alcohol and tobacco to be legal! People die from using those substances every day.





> I could also argue that you are a killer because you allow people to eat fatty foods.



Same response as above.



> All those arguments are ridiculous, including yours. That is, unless you are against Liberty and Freedom. If you are against individual choice and responsibility then you may well be within your rights to make that argument. Perhaps that is where we differ.



I am not against liberty or freedom.  I am for the rule of law.



> Pehaps...but definatley unfair when allowing personal opinion to be the your yardstick instead of the facts.



I am no different than anyone else in that.  I just admit it openly.



> It's a free...well still relatively free...country. When it comes up on the ballot to make cheesburgers illegal I may consider doing the same. I would hope that logic and reason would prevail; however, and I would take into consideration that people that eat cheesburgers are not a danger to me.



Yes you could, and that is my point.



> I wouldn't say you're a bad guy, just mislead and close-minded. I actually respect your stance, but have yet to see any real evidence or legitimate argument against decriminalizing marijuana from you or anyone else.



I *am* close-minded on this subject.  There is much to be said for close-mindedness on certain subjects.  Open-mindedness on too many subjects can lead to one's brains falling out.


----------



## jim777 (Jul 23, 2009)

A short post 

A little Penn and Teller from their TV show, '********' (this vid isn't work friendly, as it's from HBO tv. Lots of cursing so be advised)

http://vodpod.com/watch/1788640-penn-teller-********-the-war-on-drugs


----------



## Joab (Jul 23, 2009)

Don't legalize it for recreational use. If it can be determined there are medical benefits to it's use, than yes, a medical doctor should be able to prescribe a certain amount for it's medical use only.


----------



## jim777 (Jul 23, 2009)

As I've said before, I believe it should be legal; regulated and taxed by the individual States the same way that alcohol is.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9P7paNzS32m_gMI8AAEkpvjXNWwD99J8TPG0


----------



## JDenver (Jul 23, 2009)

acckkkkk----my post got all messed up.

Ironic maybe.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And I am of the opinion that it should not be legalized, and my reason is because I am against it - no other reason necessary.


 
I have a feeling, like most folks, that your tune would change if it happened to be something you were in favor of...like ketchup. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> No, not at all. The law does not treat like things equally, nor does it have to. Justice is supposed to establish fair treatment for the same crimes - not fair crimes for similar actions.


 
So...in Bill's world Justice wears contacts? 





Bill Mattocks said:


> *I* cannot deny you anything - I am not the lawgiver. Society can, and does. If society chose to make cheeseburgers illegal, then that would be the law.


 
That's a contradiction to your assertion. Are you not part of society? 





Bill Mattocks said:


> I can't deny that, but it's not germane to the discussion at hand.


 
Zee Germans aside, liberty and freedom is at the very root of this discussion actually. It's a shame you can't see that. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> No, because I didn't post it. There is no reason to do so. You won't believe my 'facts' any more than I'll believe yours. Studies on both sides of the argument are guaranteed to be rejected out of hand by those who hold contrary opinions, so I won't bother you with mine.


 
More likely it is because you have nothing to back your assertions other than your opinion. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> No, not at all. Again, *I* am not the lawgiver. But if society wants to pass a law that makes mustard illegal JUST because they don't like it, then that's the way it is. Gay Marriage in California ring a bell? The citizens shot it down - just because they don't like it. People on both sides of that argument are likewise uninterested in studies pointing to the pros or cons of gay marriage - they're either for it or against it for very personal reasons - and when it goes to the polls as a plebiscite, the majority wins and that is indeed the law of that state.


 
Gay marriage shouldn't even be on the ballot, and neither should marijuana. It's nobody's business but the people involved. Again, it's not and never has been for the majority to force morality or beliefs on the minority. Just because you and others accept it, doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean it's constitutional. It just means the beliefs and principles of the founders of this nation have been perverted to the point where an otherwise rational human being can't see the forrest through the trees. 

It doesn't matter whether you're for it or not, the government has no business legislating anything having to do with it. At least the government established in 1776 thought so anyway...





Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, I am entitled to try to force my opinion on everyone else. And you are likewise entitled to try to force your opinion on everyone too. This is exactly what happens when people go to the polls and vote on initiatives, ballot measures, constitutional modifications, and other plebiscites. There is nothing that requires any citizen to have logic or science or public sentiment as their backing - they vote their conscience and that is good enough. We are a representative republic, but we have aspects of direct democracy built into our systems, and this is one of them. We are indeed free to attempt to enforce our biased, flawed, emotional, and logic-less opinions on everybody else.


 
I am not entitled nor do I try to force my opinion on anyone. I try to sway and influence people with logic and reason. I present facts to back up my argument. People that try to force their opinions tend to build ovens to put the rest of us in. 

Our system has been perverted over time. When I go to the polls I try to vote someone in who wishes to restore freedom and liberty to the US. 

Knowing people are flawed, the founders created the Electoral College. Though it didn't seem to help. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> The fact is that marijuana is illegal for recreational use in most of the USA. The fact is that the people appear to prefer it to remain that way. Those are facts. There are no laws that require public opinion to adhere to the results of studies, nor are there any laws that prevent people from voting their opinion and nothing else.


 
Obviously! We had slavery for quite some time didn't we? Did it make it right? Was it ethical? Did it infringe on freedom and liberty? No..don't answer that question. Just think about it. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Studies - pro and con - are not facts. They are studies. They are valid means to attempt to reach a conclusion about the 'truth' but they are not facts in an of themselves. Even if they were - we as citizens are still free to absolutely reject them and hold contrary opinions anyway. That's life.


 
Studies are supported by facts. 

And yes, you can believe in the Easter Bunny if you like. There's no law against that...yet. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Sure, which is why I do not cite the dangers of marijuana as the REASON that I hold my anti-marijuana opinion. It is just something I also happen to believe. My basis for disliking marijuana and wanting it to remain illegal is personal, which I have said repeatedly. It isn't based on fact or logic and it doesn't have to be. I have a bias. So do you. That is not hypocrisy. Live with it.


 
Well...I definately hope you and the "majority" don't suddenly take up the opinion that all non-whites are worthless and should be exterminated. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> I do not agree.


 
You don't have to. But ethically, you shouldn't condemn others for disagreeing with you. Especially when their position does you know harm. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Misquotes and half-truths. I've read the quotes, and I've read the statements debunking those statements. You can believe what you like.


 
Did you poor some blood in a bowl of chicken bones and then spit in it to come up with that or do you actually have a legitimate source for your position this time? 

I believe in liberty and freedom. What do you believe in? 




Bill Mattocks said:


> The laws requiring it to be grown pertained to hemp, which is indeed cannabis, but without THC. It was not grown to smoke but to make rope, cloth, and paper. That's a misleading half-truth in the way it is commonly used by pro-weed people.


 
Wow...you really have done absolutely no research at all on this have you? Your entire position is simply based on heresy and personal opinion. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Many illicit drugs were at one time legal, like LSD and cocaine and so on. So what? They're illegal now and I'm glad of it.


 
Don't forget alcohol and how well that worked. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Not if they are arguing for or against speed limits. I am a law-abiding citizen in that I (and you too apparently) do not smoke pot; so when I make my argument, I do so as a law-abiding citizen. Those who argue against me who also smoke pot illicitly are not law-abiding. That's their choice, but I have to laugh at the idea of criminals pointing out my flaws. As far as morality goes, I hold the high ground in this debate.


 
What moral high-ground is that? Support of Liberty? Support of Freedom? Or support of oppressive government? Support of dictated morality? 





Bill Mattocks said:


> No, I do not support making them illegal. As I have said repeatedly, which you appear either not to get or not to want to get, I am not using the argument that pot is injurious to health as the basis for my opinion. If I were, then I would agree that it would be hypocritical for me to be against one and not against all.
> 
> However, I should point out that the entire line of reasoning you're using is flawed, because it can be applied to ANYONE in ANY argument. If you're against abortion, you'd better be against capital punishment. It is very easy to make any comparison and claim the person is a hypocrite if they don't also support (or are against) x, y, or z. It's used as a distraction and does not go toward the argument at hand.


 
You do not support making tobacco and alcohol illegal, but support keeping marijuana illegal and that's not hypocritical? 

Please elaborate on the flaws of my reasoning. 

It would indeed be hypocritical of one that recognizes a fetus as "life" to endorse capital punishment while being against abortion. What's that got to do with my point? If anything, it further proves it! 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, I can indeed blame the pot smokers. They make the choice to engage in the illegal behavior, knowing that it is illegal, and knowing (as everyone must by now) that the drug lords that bring it to them engage in these crimes. That is a direct, bright, shining line of culpability, just like knowingly buying stolen property ties you to the thief, but the fact that the government makes stealing illegal does not transfer blame to the government.


 
You can blame the Tooth Fairy if you like, it doesn't change anything. 

So you're saying that every time you buy a pair of jeans manufactured by child labor in a foreign country that you are personally responsible for the child's misery and possibly even thier death? Check your closet before you answer that one...

Or better yet...every time you wipe your butt you're contributing to the death of a lovely tree! 



Bill Mattocks said:


> The government did not make anyone choose to engage in illicit behavior. The responsibility is on the heads of the pot-smokers, dealers, and others in the direct line of the pot from grower to smoker.


 
They didn't do much to help prevent it either. As a matter of fact they probably did more to perpetuate it than anything. 

From child in cambodia to your local JC Penny then to you. LOL 





Bill Mattocks said:


> I presume he is harming no one. I was careful in my choice of words.


 
So ...do you hate Jed too? You didn't say. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> You could argue it, but your argument is weak and specious. Would I then be culpable for pedophiles engaging in the sex trade and resulting harm to minors because I am in favor of laws prohibiting such behavior? No. The person who knowingly breaks the law bears the responsibility for their actions and for those actions which any reasonable person would or should know were caused by that action. They are an accessory after the fact of the murders and so on.


 
Freedom and Liberty have no real value to you? 

Your argument is moot. (1) The laws against pedophilia did not establish an environment conducive to creating a criminal fringe or black market (2) The act/behavior is criminal regardless because there is a VICTIM. ...hello? McFly? 




Bill Mattocks said:


> Same response as above.


 
I see...





Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not against liberty or freedom. I am for the rule of law.


 
Yes...but...what about when the "law" infringes on those rights? Is that constitutional? Is that in line with the principles of our founders? Don't bother answering...I got this one: *NO*. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> I am no different than anyone else in that. I just admit it openly.


 
Glad you're out of the closet. LOL. Seriously, you are different...at least from me that is. I admit that my feelings on certain things play a part in my decision making, but I always try to temper my opinion with fairness using logic, reason, and facts. A bit further back I admitted to this in regards to obesity. Not proud of it, but I've overcome that predjudice because I am able to think for myself. I still have a long way to go on many things, but the point is I try and part of that is keeping an open mind. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes you could, and that is my point.


 
But I don't, and that's mine. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> I *am* close-minded on this subject. There is much to be said for close-mindedness on certain subjects. Open-mindedness on too many subjects can lead to one's brains falling out.


 
"Your mind should be as a parachute, because it only works when it is open." SGM Ed Parker. 

Be close minded, my friend. I respect your stance but must disagree with anything that inhibits liberty. 




jim777 said:


> A short post
> 
> A little Penn and Teller from their TV show, '********' (this vid isn't work friendly, as it's from HBO tv. Lots of cursing so be advised)
> 
> http://vodpod.com/watch/1788640-penn-teller-********-the-war-on-drugs


 

I love those guys. It's unfortunate that the concept of liberty seems to have become some abstract concept that people simply can't wrap their minds around any more. 

How is it that people, over 200 years ago, saw it so clearly yet today we all as a society seem to be blinded to it? 

Makes me sad...the world could be so much better and the potential is there but there seems to be more regression than progression. 

...now I'm just depressed.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 23, 2009)

Satt said:


> LOL I assume you are talking about when it progresses past the weed phase. I have known SEVERAL people who did and do smoke and they have been fine. I have NEVER heard of anyone "turning tricks" for weed. If you mean after weed and they have started something else, then yes, I understand.



Ever seen that movie Half Baked when they were in the NA meeting.  "Sit the hell down, nobody ever sucked d--- for weed!"  LOL.


----------



## Steve (Jul 23, 2009)

I honestly can't believe that we're re... ahem... hashing this same topic.  There is absolutely no reason that marijuana is illegal for use by consenting adults.  There is a lot that can be done with industrial hemp and as a recreational drug, weed is far less damaging than alcohol.  

Bill, you in particular, surprise me.  We went round and round on this a few months back and it seems to me that you finally admitted that your position was emotional and not rational.   If you are opposed to the use of weed, great.  Fine.  Many people don't drink and have stories about how alcohol has ruined the lives of people they know.  And yet, for most people, it's something they enjoy with a good meal.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 23, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> There is absolutely no reason that marijuana is illegal for use by consenting adults.



There is a very good reason, whether you agree with it or not.  That reason is that the majority want it to be illegal for recreational use.  That's a reason.  Saying 'there is no reason' over and over again doesn't change what the majority want and got.



> Bill, you in particular, surprise me.  We went round and round on this a few months back and it seems to me that you finally admitted that your position was emotional and not rational.



It was not me 'finally admitting' it.  It was me saying that it was my opinion, and being told over and over again that I could not have that opinion because I would not accept studies showing marijuana not to be harmful as the basis for changing my opinion.  Being against marijuana was my opinion at the beginning and never changed.  I'm willing to argue about what harm marijuana does - but it's pretty clear that studies done on one side or the other don't change anyone's mind.  Certainly not mine.



> If you are opposed to the use of weed, great.  Fine.  Many people don't drink and have stories about how alcohol has ruined the lives of people they know.  And yet, for most people, it's something they enjoy with a good meal.



I am, as you say, opposed to the recreational use of weed.  I'll say that to anyone who asks my opinion on the subject, and I'll vote that way everytime I get the chance.  I reject any suggestion that I'm a hypocrite for believing that, or that I must change my opinion based on someone's posted links to studies that purport to show this or that.  For people who believe in 'freedom' there sure is a lot of _"you're not allowed to believe that"_ going on here.  I do believe it, I'm going to keep believing it, and I'm going to continue to agitate for the continued non-legality of recreational marijuana use.  I don't want to use it and I don't want anyone to use it.

Your suggestion is that while I may be entitled to my personal opinion, I have no right to try to subject others to it; that is not acceptable.  I have every right to attempt to do just that, and I will.  Others who feel differently have the exact same right, and if they can convince the lawmakers to make pot legal, then so be it.  I'll still be against it, but it will be the law.


----------



## jarrod (Jul 23, 2009)

by your rationale, slavery was okay so long as the majority supported it.  what you're describing is known as tyranny of the majority, & it is one of the major pitfalls of trying to maintain freedom in a democracy.  "the majority wants it" is not only not a good reason, it violates state's rights & individual liberties.  besides, i haven't seen any data indicating that the majority does in fact want pot to be illegal, although i didn't read the entire thread.  instead i suspect that it is illegal due to lobbying & misinformation.    

jf


----------



## Carol (Jul 23, 2009)

Joab said:


> Don't legalize it for recreational use. If it can be determined there are medical benefits to it's use, than yes, a medical doctor should be able to prescribe a certain amount for it's medical use only.



Marinol is already available for medical use.  It causes no harm to the lungs because it is not smoked or inhaled, it is a specific dosage and every patient knows exactly what is in it.


----------



## jim777 (Jul 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is a very good reason, whether you agree with it or not. That reason is that the majority want it to be illegal for recreational use. That's a reason. Saying 'there is no reason' over and over again doesn't change what the majority want and got.


 
The 'majority' never voted it to be illegal. Only a handful of people decided that. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/majority-of-americans-wan_n_198196.html

And I can't believe we're going through this again either. It will be legal in the US in our lifetimes, the momentum grows every day.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 23, 2009)

I never said you couldn't believe in anything you wanted. I even said you could believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy if you wanted. 

What I said was that it was unethical, and  violation of the basic concept of liberty, for anyone to shove their self-righteousnous down anothers throat. No harm comes to another from eating a cheesburger or smoking a J; therefore there should be no law inhibiting the partaking of either. It's simple logic. It don't get no simpler!


----------



## Carol (Jul 23, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Everything on the planet contains some risk and causes harm...including sunlight.



(please don't take this too seriously)

Is sunlight illegal where you live?  Its certainly not up here but with the cool summer we've been having it certainly feels like sunlight is illegal :lol2:



> Are you sure it would result in an increase in consumption? Today, the drug of choice is pain-killers for young people. It gets them high without having to smoke...and they're free...right in mommy and daddy's medicine cabinet. Why pay for what you can get for free? Or at least what their insurance pays for...gee...wonder how that will be affected by Universal Health care?...hmmmmm...



Because its all about availability right?  So when pot is more available, there will be more people that gravitate towards that.

In other parts of the world, legalizing marijuana has resulted in an increase in consumption.  In Massachusetts, there have been several schools talking about what to do if they seen an increase in marijuana consumption among minors (due to a recent decriminalization vote).  

I just don't see that there will be a net benefit.  As Empty Hands pointed out, yes I can see the reduction of some issues, but I think they will come at a price of causing others.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 23, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> (please don't take this too seriously)
> 
> Is sunlight illegal where you live? Its certainly not up here but with the cool summer we've been having it certainly feels like sunlight is illegal :lol2:


 
Exactly...silly isn't it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 23, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I have a feeling, like most folks, that your tune would change if it happened to be something you were in favor of...like ketchup.



No, it would not.  There are a number of things that I think should be legal, and they are not.  I vote my conscience and try to get them changed, but I refrain from doing them because they ARE illegal, and I support the right of the people to express their will through the ballot box, whether it is my ox being gored or not.



> So...in Bill's world Justice wears contacts?



In Bill's world, which actually happens to be the real one, equal justice under the law is supposed to mean how the law is applied, not how one law compares to another in terms of harm done to individuals.

 Let's take DUI laws.  There is no objective test for how impaired you are.  One guy could be very close to sober while still over the legal limit, whilst another is snot-slinging falling-down puking drunk and not over the legal limit.  The law says the nearly sober guy gets busted and the puker gets a pass.  Justice?  Yes, because the standard is the standard - it is the percentage of alcohol in your bloodstream that is being tested, not how impaired you are.  Is it fair?  As fair as it can be, I suppose.  But like it or not, it is the law. 



> That's a contradiction to your assertion. Are you not part of society?



Yes, but I'm not the majority vote.  I can't make something illegal or legal.  I can only vote.



> Gay marriage shouldn't even be on the ballot, and neither should marijuana. It's nobody's business but the people involved. Again, it's not and never has been for the majority to force morality or beliefs on the minority. Just because you and others accept it, doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean it's constitutional. It just means the beliefs and principles of the founders of this nation have been perverted to the point where an otherwise rational human being can't see the forrest through the trees.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you're for it or not, the government has no business legislating anything having to do with it. At least the government established in 1776 thought so anyway...



I recognize the reality of the situation.  We cannot argue about the game because you turn over the board and declare that the rules suck.  Sorry, but they are what they are.



> I am not entitled nor do I try to force my opinion on anyone. I try to sway and influence people with logic and reason. I present facts to back up my argument. People that try to force their opinions tend to build ovens to put the rest of us in.



Everyone who voted against gay marriage in California wants to put people in ovens?  I'm going to take a SWAG and say that's probably not true.



> Our system has been perverted over time. When I go to the polls I try to vote someone in who wishes to restore freedom and liberty to the US.



I believe we have freedom, liberty, and - most important - recourse to the law.  You prove it by voting.  If your guys win, then you get your way.  Oh, by the way,  that's imposing your will on others, in case you hadn't noticed.



> Knowing people are flawed, the founders created the Electoral College. Though it didn't seem to help.



The Electoral College is a fine thing.  It does not apply to state plebescites.  Speaking of things that the Founders never intended, the federal government was never intended to tell the states how to run things.  The states seem to like the idea of allowing the people to vote directly on ballot initatives and to take the results as law.  You seem to have a problem with that - what a shame, it is what the founders intended that you're against.



> Obviously! We had slavery for quite some time didn't we? Did it make it right? Was it ethical? Did it infringe on freedom and liberty? No..don't answer that question. Just think about it.



I don't have to think about it.  Slavery was neither right nor ethical.  It was, however, legal.



> Studies are supported by facts.



No, studies are supported by collections of data, which are then interpreted.



> And yes, you can believe in the Easter Bunny if you like. There's no law against that...yet.



But your version of freedom would put a stop to that, right?



> Well...I definately hope you and the "majority" don't suddenly take up the opinion that all non-whites are worthless and should be exterminated.



Fortunately, the Bill of Rights overrides any such majority decision.  As I said way back in the beginning, if the federal government (and by extention, the states) are not expressely prohibited from infringing on a given right, then they can and do, on a regular basis.  There is indeed a prohibition against what you describe - so even a majority vote can't make it legal.

Marijuana is not covered in the Bill of Rights.



> You don't have to. But ethically, you shouldn't condemn others for disagreeing with you. Especially when their position does you know harm.



I can and do.  And I contend that people who illicitly smoke marijuana do indeed to me harm.  My society is more dangerous, my taxes are higher, and my family is at risk because of illicit drug users.  That's harm.



> Did you poor some blood in a bowl of chicken bones and then spit in it to come up with that or do you actually have a legitimate source for your position this time?



I haven't insulted you.



> I believe in liberty and freedom. What do you believe in?



Same as you, plus the will of the people as expressed in the rule of law.



> Wow...you really have done absolutely no research at all on this have you? Your entire position is simply based on heresy and personal opinion.



Actually, I have done quite a bit of research on the history of hemp-growing.  I wrote a couple papers supporting the legalization of hemp for commercial paper and cloth growing while I was in college.  I still support the legalization of hemp for commercial products.

I even still have books published in the 1920's that detail the hemp crop yields in Missouri.  I'd say I've done my research on hemp.



> Don't forget alcohol and how well that worked.



That's an old argument that I reject utterly - that since we cannot enforce a law, it should not exist.  We can't get people to stop cheating on their taxes, either, but that is not a good reason to making cheating on taxes legal.



> What moral high-ground is that? Support of Liberty? Support of Freedom? Or support of oppressive government? Support of dictated morality?



Support of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.  The same oath I swore in the military.  The law that exists, not the law as I wish it was.




> You do not support making tobacco and alcohol illegal, but support keeping marijuana illegal and that's not hypocritical?



Yes, and yes.  I've said that and explained it.



> Please elaborate on the flaws of my reasoning.



Because your basis is not my basis.  I used the example of mustard and ketchup.  I can be against one and for the other and not by hypocritical, even though both are condiments.  Perhaps I'm against one because it contains lots of sugar, and the othere does not.  Now, I would be hypocritical by one standard and not hypocritical by another.  What matters is which basis I am using to make my judgment.

Likewise, my basis for supporting the legality of alcohol and tobacco and not marijuana is NOT the supposed health risks each possesses.  Therefore, I am not a hypocrite.



> It would indeed be hypocritical of one that recognizes a fetus as "life" to endorse capital punishment while being against abortion. What's that got to do with my point? If anything, it further proves it!



People are quite often pro-life and pro-capital punishment.  In fact, it is a common 'conservative' opinion.  Those people are not all hypocrites because they do not share 'life' as the basis of their opinions.  Their basis is not your basis.



> So you're saying that every time you buy a pair of jeans manufactured by child labor in a foreign country that you are personally responsible for the child's misery and possibly even thier death? Check your closet before you answer that one...



I said 'legal' and again, I was careful with my words.  You suggested that the government is actually responsible for the deaths of people at the hands of drug smugglers and I said no, the pot-smokers are because they know what they are doing is illegal.  Buying pants is legal.  If there is misery and injury attached to the people who make those pants, as long as it is a legal product, the responsibility belongs to those who allow it to happen and remain legal.  The difference is the one is legal and one is not.



> Or better yet...every time you wipe your butt you're contributing to the death of a lovely tree!



If bogroll were illegal, yes.  Since it isn't, no.



> They didn't do much to help prevent it either. As a matter of fact they probably did more to perpetuate it than anything.



Again, pot smokers know what they are doing is illegal.  They know that the murders and beheadings that happen in border areas like Mexico are due to the drug smuggling that goes on - to bring the drug they want to them.  They bear direct, clear, very easy to understand responsibility.  They are the demand that the suppliers are supplying.  The government is not responsble for the choice they make to buy illegal drugs.



> Freedom and Liberty have no real value to you?



Of course they do.

Our freedoms and liberty are enshrined in our system of laws.  Respect for that law is respect for our freedom and our liberty.  For those aspects of our society that I disagree with, I have recourse to the law - the recourse you claim I should be denied, the plebiscite vote.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 23, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> What I said was that it was unethical, and  violation of the basic concept of liberty, for anyone to shove their self-righteousnous down anothers throat.



It is only self-righteousness if you don't personally agree with it.  If you want marijuana to be legal, and you vote for that and the vote wins, then you have shoved YOUR self-righteousness down my throat.  But you won't see it that way, because naturally it is the result you wanted.  Your point of view depends on whose ox is being gored.



> No harm comes to another from eating a cheesburger or smoking a J;


I disagree.



> therefore there should be no law inhibiting the partaking of either.


But there is.  And furthermore, there should be, as long as the majority in this country support it.



> It's simple logic. It don't get no simpler!


Simple, yes.  Also wrong.

Your simple logic works like this:

*Pot is harmless [therefore]
It should be legal*

My response is that

*Pot is not harmless [and regardless of that]
what should or should not be legal is up to the electorate to decide*

My response is the response of freedom and liberty - free people get to vote on what the laws of the land should be, as long as they do not infringe on basic civil rights enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Your statement is flawed logic based on what you personally want (pot to be legal) based on how you feel the government should run (legal if it does no harm to anyone else).  I disagree with the first part, and the second part is patently anti-freedom.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 23, 2009)

jim777 said:


> The 'majority' never voted it to be illegal. Only a handful of people decided that.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/majority-of-americans-wan_n_198196.html



Every time a ballot measure has been introduced to make marijuana legal, it has been defeated at the polls by the electorate.



> And I can't believe we're going through this again either. It will be legal in the US in our lifetimes, the momentum grows every day.



That is possible.  I'll still be against it, but it will be the law of the land if it happens.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 23, 2009)

jarrod said:


> by your rationale, slavery was okay so long as the majority supported it.



No.  Slavery is a violation of the basic rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Smoking pot is not.



> what you're describing is known as tyranny of the majority, & it is one of the major pitfalls of trying to maintain freedom in a democracy.



Pitfall or not, it is how laws are made at the ballot initiative level in most US states.

Lots of people tell me how wrong it is - but the fact is it that it is the law in most states.  Wrong or right - it is the law.  Don't tell me how you think it should work - I get that.  Let's deal with how it does work.  That's fact, not fantasy.



> "the majority wants it" is not only not a good reason, it violates state's rights & individual liberties.



Wrong.  The majority vote in a plebiscite is how states enforce their rights.  Ballot referendums and initiatives are run AT THE STATE LEVEL.  Don't any of you people take civics classes?  Do you not know how your own state runs?

Plebiscites are the basic element of democracy in an otherwise representative republic of individual states.  It is how the citizens of a state directly express their will, which overrides all other contradictory laws UNLESS it infringes on the rights protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  It is the most individual power a citizen of a state ever expresses.



> besides, i haven't seen any data indicating that the majority does in fact want pot to be illegal, although i didn't read the entire thread.  instead i suspect that it is illegal due to lobbying & misinformation.



Every time a ballot initiative for the legalization of the recreational use of pot has come up, it has been defeated, in every state it has been tried.  Medical marijuana has been advancing by the very same ballot initiative method, however.

Funny how people are for ballot initiatives if they are for something they want and against them if they are not.  They love them a nice ballot initiative if it's for gay marriage.  If it's against gay marriage, then ballot initiatives are wrong and bad.  Hahahahaha.


----------



## crushing (Jul 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Every time a ballot measure has been introduced to make marijuana legal, it has been defeated at the polls by the electorate.
> 
> 
> That is possible. I'll still be against it, but it will be the law of the land if it happens.


 

The scare tactics and prohibition that have been used to keep the marijuana profits in the hands of the well connected drug lords are wearing thin.  People are seeing through it little by little and you may see legalization (or decriminalization) in your lifetime.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/13/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5154848.shtml

Well, unless the profiteers are able scare up more opposition.


----------



## Carol (Jul 23, 2009)

There is one aspect to the decriminalization in Mass. that I found interesting.   If a minor child 17 years of age or younger is caught with an ounce or less of marijuana, then both the minor child *and their parents *have to go through a drug education program.


----------



## blindsage (Jul 23, 2009)

Bill you say your desire to keep casual marijuana use illegal is not based it's health effects.  It _sounds _to me that your concern is the trafficking in marijuana and the toll it takes on the community.  Is this the case?  And if so, why wouldn't you then want to make it legal, so the trafficking would then move into more legal and legitimate channels?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, it would not. There are a number of things that I think should be legal, and they are not. I vote my conscience and try to get them changed, but I refrain from doing them because they ARE illegal, and I support the right of the people to express their will through the ballot box, whether it is my ox being gored or not.


 
Okay, so we agree that some things should be changed. That's a start I suppose. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> In Bill's world, which actually happens to be the real one, equal justice under the law is supposed to mean how the law is applied, not how one law compares to another in terms of harm done to individuals.


 
The "real" world is subject to individual perception...is that too abstract a concept for you as well? LOL ...jk...

I get your point, but what's to be done when the law itself is unfair? 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Let's take DUI laws. There is no objective test for how impaired you are. One guy could be very close to sober while still over the legal limit, whilst another is snot-slinging falling-down puking drunk and not over the legal limit. The law says the nearly sober guy gets busted and the puker gets a pass. Justice? Yes, because the standard is the standard - it is the percentage of alcohol in your bloodstream that is being tested, not how impaired you are. Is it fair? As fair as it can be, I suppose. But like it or not, it is the law.


 
Uh...no...your basic sobriety test takes place in most cases before the breathalyzer. That's a more objective test per individual to gauge how inebriated one is....anyway...what point are you trying to make here? 

The law ain't fair? 

Wow...two things we agree on...we are making some progress here! 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, but I'm not the majority vote. I can't make something illegal or legal. I can only vote.


 
But should things like this even be on a ballot? I say no, they shouldn't. As Jay777 pointed out...it was never on a ballot to made illegal in the first place. That's not very _democratic_ is it? I hold that forcing one to adhere to a another's "righteous" opinion manifest in law isn't very democratic either. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> I recognize the reality of the situation. We cannot argue about the game because you turn over the board and declare that the rules suck. Sorry, but they are what they are.


 
Aha! I, and other libertarian minded folks, liked the rules the way they were set up to begin with. The rules aren't the same any more, they've been perverted to the extent that they crap on the concept of liberty; personal choice and responsibility. 

From our perspective, we're esentially playing with a bunch of cheaters only interested in pushing forth personal agendas with no regard for the freedom of others. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Everyone who voted against gay marriage in California wants to put people in ovens? I'm going to take a SWAG and say that's probably not true.


 
A little extreme, yes... but they obviously don't agree that gays should share the same rights. There are no doubt those that really hate gays for their lifestyle choice, yet gays harm nobody. Given the right opportunity do you doubt they wouldn't try and shove them in an oven? 

People can be so narrow minded...it's evident all throughout history. Our founders attempted to establish a governmnet that would not repeat the same mistakes of the past. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> I believe we have freedom, liberty, and - most important - recourse to the law. You prove it by voting. If your guys win, then you get your way. Oh, by the way, that's imposing your will on others, in case you hadn't noticed.


 
Your understanding of the process is disturbing... ever heard of the concept "majority rules with minority rights"? 





Bill Mattocks said:


> The Electoral College is a fine thing. It does not apply to state plebescites. Speaking of things that the Founders never intended, the federal government was never intended to tell the states how to run things. The states seem to like the idea of allowing the people to vote directly on ballot initatives and to take the results as law. You seem to have a problem with that - what a shame, it is what the founders intended that you're against.


 
No..in regards to certain items..like interstate trade...they were. If you're not going to follow a link could you at least pick up a book or something? 

I feel like I'm on a carousel...round and round... Laws were never intended to *inhibit* freedoms or liberties, they were intended to *protect* them. 

I'm against ingnorace, prejudice, gun control, and generally government intervention into my *life*. I'd say that's pretty much in line with the founders intentions based on what I've read. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't have to think about it. Slavery was neither right nor ethical. It was, however, legal.


 
So...we take a time machine back and have this same discussion and we find you endorsing slavery? Because it's legal? ...wow...





Bill Mattocks said:


> No, studies are supported by collections of data, which are then interpreted.


 
I'd say if the data shows that when you jump off a cliff you splatter on the rocks below, that would support the fact that gravity exists. But hey... who am I to argue? I'm just an dumb redneck hick in Georgia. Yeppers! 





Bill Mattocks said:


> But your version of freedom would put a stop to that, right?


 
It ain't *my* version and it ain't necessary. You *can* believe in the Easter Bunny with no fear of legal repercussion. 

BTW, how many versions of freedom are they? 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Fortunately, the Bill of Rights overrides any such majority decision. As I said way back in the beginning, if the federal government (and by extention, the states) are not expressely prohibited from infringing on a given right, then they can and do, on a regular basis. There is indeed a prohibition against what you describe - so even a majority vote can't make it legal.


 
Huh? I'm sure there are some folks of darker skin pigmentation that would disagree with you. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Marijuana is not covered in the Bill of Rights.


 
Neither is a lot of things...what's your point? 

One thing is certain, they intended the people to be able to pursue happiness without the infringement of the government. Or are you gonna tell me that's bull again? 




Bill Mattocks said:


> I can and do. And I contend that people who illicitly smoke marijuana do indeed to me harm. My society is more dangerous, my taxes are higher, and my family is at risk because of illicit drug users. That's harm.


 
If you hold that your society is more dangerous because increased crime related to the sell of marijuana, then you should be upset with the government for making it illegal and creating the black market for it. 

You taxes are higher because your government enacted another prohibition, I'm sorry...WAR on drugs that is an absolute failure as proven by recorded data...determine what you think the "facts" are from that if you choose...I won't bother to post a link since you won't read it anyway. 

Your family is at risk from illicit drug users? How? They trying to roll you for drug money in the alley? Your family is in danger from distracted drivers too... paranoid rhetoric that does not substantiate your position. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> I haven't insulted you.


 
Never claimed you had? Do you feel I've insulted you? If so, I apologize. It's not intended. :asian:





Bill Mattocks said:


> Same as you, plus the will of the people as expressed in the rule of law.


 
Laws were intended to protect liberty and freedom of the people, not inhibit them. When a law inhibits a freedom...it is wrong and should be gotten rid of (like that slavery thing.) 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Actually, I have done quite a bit of research on the history of hemp-growing. I wrote a couple papers supporting the legalization of hemp for commercial paper and cloth growing while I was in college. I still support the legalization of hemp for commercial products.
> 
> I even still have books published in the 1920's that detail the hemp crop yields in Missouri. I'd say I've done my research on hemp.


 
Groovy. So you do support it? Outstanding! Progress! 





Bill Mattocks said:


> That's an old argument that I reject utterly - that since we cannot enforce a law, it should not exist. We can't get people to stop cheating on their taxes, either, but that is not a good reason to making cheating on taxes legal.


 
Old, but still applicable. You can reject the sky is blue too...doesn't change it to another color. 

And no...we shouldn't make cheating on taxes legal...we should make certain taxes illegal. Oh wait...we tried that and they made a damn amendment...LOL 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Support of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. The same oath I swore in the military. The law that exists, not the law as I wish it was.


 
So when they raise the Chinese flag over DC and change to Communist Law you'll salute that flag? 

I support the Constitution, I do not support unconstitutional laws. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, and yes. I've said that and explained it.


 
Obviously not to my satisfaction. :moon: 

If you endorse eating meat, but say that eating pork chops is wrong...that's hypocritcal. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Because your basis is not my basis. I used the example of mustard and ketchup. I can be against one and for the other and not by hypocritical, even though both are condiments. Perhaps I'm against one because it contains lots of sugar, and the othere does not. Now, I would be hypocritical by one standard and not hypocritical by another. What matters is which basis I am using to make my judgment.


 
It's not hypocritical to have an opinion or preference. It becomes hypocritical when you try to force others to use only ketchup because you want the mustard to be illegal just 'cause you don't like it. The mustard ain't hurting nobody... it didn't jump up and kill your dog. It's just mustard. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Likewise, my basis for supporting the legality of alcohol and tobacco and not marijuana is NOT the supposed health risks each possesses. Therefore, I am not a hypocrite.


 
What are those reasons again? Oh yeah...you just don't like it. Kinda' like mustard. That's a compelling argument..._'cause you say so._ 





Bill Mattocks said:


> People are quite often pro-life and pro-capital punishment. In fact, it is a common 'conservative' opinion. Those people are not all hypocrites because they do not share 'life' as the basis of their opinions. Their basis is not your basis.


 
I'm obviously not a conservative and we aren't talking about capital punishment or abortion. And I believe I prefaced my "basis" with the words "...if you believe a fetus is a life" which did make it legitimate. 



I





Bill Mattocks said:


> I said 'legal' and again, I was careful with my words. You suggested that the government is actually responsible for the deaths of people at the hands of drug smugglers and I said no, the pot-smokers are because they know what they are doing is illegal. Buying pants is legal. If there is misery and injury attached to the people who make those pants, as long as it is a legal product, the responsibility belongs to those who allow it to happen and remain legal. The difference is the one is legal and one is not.


 
They're just as responsible if not more so than your assertion that somebody sitting on their couch blazing is responsible. You don't think, especially after the fiasco that was the Prohibition, the government didn't forsee the repercussions of a War on Drugs? ...please...pull the other one. 

So you look at it as a "legal" issue and I see it as an "ethical" one. 

By the way, child labor is illegal in the US, but as long as the pants aren't made here you don't have a problem with it, eh? What about pot that's grown in Mexico? LOL 





Bill Mattocks said:


> If bogroll were illegal, yes. Since it isn't, no.


 
ROFLMAO





Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, pot smokers know what they are doing is illegal. They know that the murders and beheadings that happen in border areas like Mexico are due to the drug smuggling that goes on - to bring the drug they want to them. They bear direct, clear, very easy to understand responsibility. They are the demand that the suppliers are supplying. The government is not responsble for the choice they make to buy illegal drugs.


 
The majority of marijuana sold and used in the US is actually grown right here. I thought you did your research? 

And again, if the government had not infringed on personal liberty none of this would be relevant...except in Mexico...and to the Mexicans. You do know that Latinos use marijuana heavily, right? It's a cultrual thing. That whole "top 7 reasons" thing I posted a while back? Oh...damn..you don't research links provided do you...sigh. 

The demand is there, regardless of whether it's legal or not. The government is responsible for whether that demand is met on an open market or a black market. All the data over the years points to the fact that it's more beneficial to society to have it met on an open market, whether you choose to accept that or not is irrelevent. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> Of course they do.


 
Hey...that's 3 things we have in common now! 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Our freedoms and liberty are enshrined in our system of laws. Respect for that law is respect for our freedom and our liberty. For those aspects of our society that I disagree with, I have recourse to the law - the recourse you claim I should be denied, the plebiscite vote.


 
Our laws are meant to protect our freedom and liberties, especially from the likes of a tyranical government. I can not respect a law contrary to that basic ideology. 

I deny no one their rights, but you have expressed that you do. I do deny others any "right" to attempt to unjustly force me to live in accordance with what they view as a righteous way to live. Live your life, and I'll live mine. Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. 

It's that Golden Rule thing again. 

Also, I notice that while I address every comment you make you choose only to address specific remarks of mine. Why is that? Do you feel uncomfortable with some of the points I make? Just curious.


----------



## jarrod (Jul 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No.  Slavery is a violation of the basic rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Smoking pot is not.
> 
> *liberty & the pursuit of happiness my man.  *
> 
> ...



all the best,

jf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 23, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Your family is at risk from illicit drug users? How? They trying to roll you for drug money in the alley? Your family is in danger from distracted drivers too... paranoid rhetoric that does not substantiate your position.



I'm going to cut this short for two reasons.  One, I've stated this before, and I thought you had read it.  Two, I was asked to stop talking about such 'personal things' by a mod.

So let's keep it brief.  Has my family been in danger from illicit drug users?  Yes.  A relative who became a crack whore and her daughter, raped at age two by a drug addict in the crack house where she left her while she got high.  How does that work for you?  Enough damage, or do you want more?

I'm not looking for pity or sympathy.  But you ask my why I have a personal opinion unsupported by 'facts' and this is it.  You have 'facts' that say pot smoking is not dangerous and does not lead to harder drugs, etc.  I have a family that went to hell and I got to go with them.  I've been there and I've seen it. I've pulled my family member out of crack houses and had to fight my way through coked up, crack headed, smoke filled buildings filled with idiots, morons, criminals, and the broken, perverted, and dangerous.  I've been attacked with needles and broken bottles and knives.  I've been threatened and had my house broken into - all for trying to rescue a family member who didn't particularly want to be rescued and her four children who had no say in the matter.  You say it's not dangerous, and I say you're wrong.



> The majority of marijuana sold and used in the US is actually grown right here. I thought you did your research?



That is not a true statement, because the actual percentage is unknown.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/drugfact/drug_avail/chpt4.pdf



> The quantity of domestically produced marijuana that was available in the United States in 2001 is unknown. While the group did develop a methodology for determining such availability in the future, the uncertainty in the required data, some of which do not currently exist, is magnified by the model, and prevents the derivation of a credible estimate at this time. However, by making reasonable assumptions regarding the number of cannabis plants eradicated and the amount of marijuana potentially produced per cannabis plant, and applying a set of hypothetical values for the cannabis eradication rate, the model yields an estimate for the availability of domestic marijuana ranging between 5,577 and 16,731 metric tons.



No one knows if the 'majority' of marijuana sold in the USA is produced here.  The DEA claims that the higher potency pot comes from Mexico, with lower-potency coming from the US, but they say that is changing, with higher quality beginning to come from the USA and Canada.

And where is domestic pot grown?  In forests and parks, under the cover of trees and in farmer's fields of legitimate crops if they can get away with it.  Guarded by booby-traps, tripwires, seismic detectors, and transported by criminal and outlaws MC gangs.  I don't see that as particularly more savory than the people cutting off heads in Mexico currently.  



> Also, I notice that while I address every comment you make you choose only to address specific remarks of mine. Why is that? Do you feel uncomfortable with some of the points I make? Just curious.



I am trying to skip the repeats.  I say yes, you say no, now what?  You say yes again, I say no again.  How long do we do that?  I guess until one of us gets bored enough to just drop it.  I think I just hit that point.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 23, 2009)

It's a shame that happened to your family, but it's not everyone who smokes pot is gonna end up in a crack house, just like not everyone who drinks beer is gonna end up drinking them self to death like Bonn Scott.  Generalizing using your experience is great for you, but it blanks out other people's personal choice, people who may not have addictive personalities.


----------



## geezer (Jul 23, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Generalizing using your experience is great for you, but it blanks out other people's personal choice, people who may not have addictive personalities.



True enough, yet in the final analysis I think we all end up basing our opinions more on our experiences than on somebody else's "damn statistics". My personal experiences include far more lives messed up or snuffed out from alcohol addiction than from marijuana. And philosophically, I favor people allowing people to make their own choices on such matters. That's just me... I guess...

But back to one thing Bill referred to-- that since as the _majority_ felt that marijuana should be illegal, well, then it should be.

Now I'm not all that keen on always going along with the majority, especially when it often overlooks the rights of minorities, but for the sake of argument, let's go along with that for the moment. Even so, does the majority still really feel that way? It sure doesn't look like it from what I see posted here. I mean from liberal to conservative to libertarian... across the board, most of you guys seem to favor some form of legalization or decriminalization of pot. Or do I read you wrong?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 23, 2009)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who-supports-marijuana-legalization.aspx


----------



## Omar B (Jul 23, 2009)

Another proof showing the majority making choices for the minority, we've seen such many times.  Fact of the matter is, what a person does in the privacy of their own home that's not causing anyone physical or financial harm should not be the business of anyone else, especially the government.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 23, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Another proof showing the majority making choices for the minority, we've seen such many times.



Yep, nothing wrong with it.  That's how our government works, unless someone's civil liberties are being infringed upon.



> Fact of the matter is, what a person does in the privacy of their own home that's not causing anyone physical or financial harm should not be the business of anyone else, especially the government.



It is not a 'fact' in any court in the land.  It's an opinion, not a fact.

The 'fact' of the matter is that what a person does in the privacy of their own home is very much the business of the government's, depending on what that is.  Making counterfeit money?  Producing kiddie porn?  Cutting up coke on the coffee table?  All the business of the government.

Whilst I do not support unlawful government intrusion into people's homes (unlawful search and seizure, the 4th Amendment), I also do not think people are legally free to do as they wish as long as they do it in their own homes.

In the end, the 'fact' of the matter is that the courts have never yet recognized a civil liberty to smoke marijuana.  You can try to argue that you have that right in court, if you wish.  Good luck with it.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yep, nothing wrong with it.  That's how our government works, unless someone's civil liberties are being infringed upon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you didn't read what I said then?  Counterfeit money does cause financial harm, and kiddie porn does cause physical.  Coke doesn't do crap to anyone but the person taking it so that's nobody's business.


----------



## jarrod (Jul 23, 2009)

rights are more important than laws.  

let me run this by you, if it's too personal, my apologies & don't feel obligated to answer.  

in kansas, sodomy is still illegal.  the definition of sodomy is expanded to include oral sex of any form.  doesn't matter if you're in your own home or not.  of course the law isn't enforced in privacy-of-your-own-home situations, but there is absolutely nothing on the books saying it can't be.  so if you lived in the otherwise largely great state of kansas, would you abide by this law?  or is it just nobody's damn business?  

the law is the law, after all.  

jf


----------



## Joab (Jul 23, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Marinol is already available for medical use. It causes no harm to the lungs because it is not smoked or inhaled, it is a specific dosage and every patient knows exactly what is in it.


 
The problem with marinol or any pill is that it is often regurgitated by cancer patients who find marijuana helps alleviate nausea from chemotherapy. The smoke from smoking it doesn't upset the stomach like a pill can.


----------



## jarrod (Jul 23, 2009)

jarrod said:


> in kansas, sodomy is still illegal.  the definition of sodomy is expanded to include oral sex of any form.  doesn't matter if you're in your own home or not.  of course the law isn't enforced in privacy-of-your-own-home situations, but there is absolutely nothing on the books saying it can't be.
> 
> jf



just did a tiny bit of research, it appears this law is no longer on the books, at least in any heterosexual context.  but let's pretend it is just for fun.

jf


----------



## Joab (Jul 24, 2009)

jarrod said:


> just did a tiny bit of research, it appears this law is no longer on the books, at least in any heterosexual context. but let's pretend it is just for fun.
> 
> jf


It wouldn't matter if it was on the books because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that sodomy can not be made illegal. However the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution is the law of the land, you probaly already know that.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 24, 2009)

IF marijuana has a valid medical use, then it should be treated like morphine, demorol, codine and other narcotics. There is NO burning reason to legalize it just so people can get high. If THAT is the purpose, then the proponents of marijuana legalization should damn well be LOUDLY advocating the legalization for recreational use of morphine, demorol, etc.
But, if they did that, they'd alienate a ton of people.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 24, 2009)

Okay Bill, we get it. You HATE marijuana. I have a sneaking suspicion that if your personal experiences involved alcohol you would probably be lobbying to outlaw it as well. 

We also get that you will blindly follow any law, regardless of whether it violates the principles of the founders. Those being that *laws are intended to protect our freedoms and liberties, not inhibit them. *

I recognize how difficult it is to separate personal experience and prejudice from one's ability to make rational decisions based on pure logic and sound reason. If it were easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion or many, many others. Nobody I know of is capable of doing this all of the time...but it's important to try. 

We all "feel" that certain things are right and others are wrong, but where we part ways is what things we tell others, in all fairness, they can and can not do. That's where the concept of liberty comes in. Even the Golden Rule alludes to liberty; "Do unto others..." If you do not want government intrusion into your personal space, you must be against ALL government intrusion into anyone's personal space. One simple, very basic ideal underlying all that is this: You have absolutely no right to govern the actions or behavior of another where no harm is caused to another. 

Some people get it...some people don't. Those that don't, are usually the contributers to endorsing legislation that violates personal freedom; from wire tapping to dictating what sexual positions a married couple can legally use when expressing their love for each other. From prohibition to racial profiling....the list goes on and on. 

The difference between "us" and "them" is that "we", regardless of personal feelings recognize when legislation crosses the line and regardless of those personal feelings endorse what is RIGHT for ALL individuals. 

Another personal example: I don't think homosexual behavior is normal. Why should I? I'm heterosexual. Seeing two men kiss makes me extremely uncomfortable. So what? It's none of my business. They are harming no one. At least they're kissing and not strangling each other! So, logic dictates that I should leave them alone. I don't want the government telling me what I can do in my bedroom, so I must endorse that they have the same right. It's that simple. Besides, I've discovered over the years that it's a good idea to be friends with gays...they help me shop for cool clothes because I have absolutely no fashion sense and if it were left up to me to dress myself I'd never get a date! LOL 

And BTW....marijuana is NOT a narcotic. It does not fit the definition of what a narcotic is, so...the government can try to classify it that way all day long in order to further demonize it, but it doesn't change the facts. If marijuana is a narcotic, then so is alcohol and it should be illegal as well.


----------



## jim777 (Jul 24, 2009)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization


----------



## jim777 (Jul 24, 2009)

And thank goodness we spent all that tax money on the Shafer Commision! :rofl:


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 24, 2009)

jim777 said:


> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization


 
How dare they combat a social issue with common sense!!! It doesn't matter if it's working or not!! Drugs are evil and people that use them are evil and need to be destroyed! 

...right.....


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jul 24, 2009)

.​ 
​


----------



## Steve (Jul 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is a very good reason, whether you agree with it or not. That reason is that the majority want it to be illegal for recreational use. That's a reason. Saying 'there is no reason' over and over again doesn't change what the majority want and got.


I am not sure I agree with that.  You've said it many times, but I'm not sure where you're getting that idea.   You seem to be saying essentially that most people want it to be illegal because it's illegal.  Am I missing something?  





> It was not me 'finally admitting' it. It was me saying that it was my opinion, and being told over and over again that I could not have that opinion because I would not accept studies showing marijuana not to be harmful as the basis for changing my opinion.


I'll have to dig up the thread, because I'm pretty sure that's not quite how it happened. 





> Being against marijuana was my opinion at the beginning and never changed. I'm willing to argue about what harm marijuana does - but it's pretty clear that studies done on one side or the other don't change anyone's mind. Certainly not mine.


No one is arguing that weed is altogether healthful, although there are documented health benefits in some cases.  Weed for recreational use would need to be controlled much as we control access to alcohol and tobacco.  

_Anything_, if abused, will be damaging to your health.  That goes for everything from alcohol to a juicy ribeye steak.  Too much fat will kill you dead, just as surely as anything else will.  





> I am, as you say, opposed to the recreational use of weed. I'll say that to anyone who asks my opinion on the subject, and I'll vote that way everytime I get the chance. I reject any suggestion that I'm a hypocrite for believing that, or that I must change my opinion based on someone's posted links to studies that purport to show this or that.


I never suggested that you are a hypocrite, nor that you should change your opinion.  I am simply saying that your opinion is clearly grounded in emotion.  Many of our opinions are.  What I can't understand is why you continue to try and argue your emotional position.  This is why you keep falling back to "it's my opinion and I'm allowed to have it."  





> For people who believe in 'freedom' there sure is a lot of _"you're not allowed to believe that"_ going on here.


Exactly the opposite.  





> I do believe it, I'm going to keep believing it, and I'm going to continue to agitate for the continued non-legality of recreational marijuana use. I don't want to use it and I don't want anyone to use it.


In the words of Perry Mason, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case."





> Your suggestion is that while I may be entitled to my personal opinion, I have no right to try to subject others to it; that is not acceptable. I have every right to attempt to do just that, and I will. Others who feel differently have the exact same right, and if they can convince the lawmakers to make pot legal, then so be it. I'll still be against it, but it will be the law.


Once again, not even close.  My suggestion is that you be at least honest enough with yourself to admit that your position is emotional and not rational.  Any arguments you make are attempts to rationalize your position, and "facts" are irrelevant because you will never change your mind.  For example, now you're trying to argue from the position of the majority: "Most people want it to be illegal, so it is."  But can you honestly say that if you were the only one in the country who felt as you do, you'd change your mind?  I don't think so.  I would suspect that if there were a clear minority of people who felt as you do, you'd throw out something along the lines of, "There was a time when the majority thought the world was flat."


----------



## Steve (Jul 24, 2009)

Joab said:


> The problem with marinol or any pill is that it is often regurgitated by cancer patients who find marijuana helps alleviate nausea from chemotherapy. The smoke from smoking it doesn't upset the stomach like a pill can.


This reminded me of Ricky Williams, the former NFL running back.  I remember when he was drafted by Ditka to the Saints.  He was a strange dude, doing interviews with his helmet on and frequently found sitting in his locker.  Turns out, he was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and prescribed drugs.  Long story short, the drugs they prescribed... paxil, IIRC, had severe side effects.  Marijuana did not.  He was quoted as saying that marijuana was 10 times better for him than paxil.  Over the course of several years, he was fined and suspended for using a banned substance and eventually retired to Canada, where I believe he now teaches yoga.

At the time, I thought it was interesting that marijuana (clearly not a performance enhancing drug) was banned, and they were basically trying to force this guy to take a lab produced pharmaceutical that, by his account, didn't really work for him.  It really made no sense to me at the time and still doesn't.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 24, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> This reminded me of Ricky Williams, the former NFL running back. I remember when he was drafted by Ditka to the Saints. He was a strange dude, doing interviews with his helmet on and frequently found sitting in his locker. Turns out, he was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and prescribed drugs. Long story short, the drugs they prescribed... paxil, IIRC, had severe side effects. Marijuana did not. He was quoted as saying that marijuana was 10 times better for him than paxil. Over the course of several years, he was fined and suspended for using a banned substance and eventually retired to Canada, where I believe he now teaches yoga.
> 
> At the time, I thought it was interesting that marijuana (clearly not a performance enhancing drug) was banned, and they were basically trying to force this guy to take a lab produced pharmaceutical that, by his account, didn't really work for him. It really made no sense to me at the time and still doesn't.


 
It makes sense when you consider some drug dealers are legal (like Phizer) and some are not (Like Billy-Bob on the corner.)


----------



## Frostbite (Jul 24, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> It makes sense when you consider some drug dealers are legal (like Phizer) and some are not (Like Billy-Bob on the corner.)



Which, in the end, is why drug companies don't want marijuana legalized--they can't patent it.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 24, 2009)

Frostbite said:


> Which, in the end, is why drug companies don't want marijuana legalized--they can't patent it.


 
No doubt. 

And God forbid the tobacco industry make a come-back by producing and selling marijuana ... I mean...who needs a job these days anyway?


----------



## Steve (Jul 24, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> No doubt.
> 
> And God forbid the tobacco industry make a come-back by producing and selling marijuana ... I mean...who needs a job these days anyway?


Instead of buying a pack of Marlboro reds, you'll get a pack of Marlboro Greens.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 24, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Instead of buying a pack of Marlboro reds, you'll get a pack of Marlboro Greens.


 
How about Virginia Pins? Or Doral Doobs? LOL


----------



## Steve (Jul 24, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> How about Virginia Pins? Or Doral Doobs? LOL


Marleyboros?


----------



## jim777 (Jul 24, 2009)




----------



## Omar B (Jul 24, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> No doubt.
> And God forbid the tobacco industry make a come-back by producing and selling marijuana ... I mean...who needs a job these days anyway?



Dude, you know how great that would be, I would buy a pack of those for $20!  It would be a safe, taxed product, we would be sure that we got our special blend, not some dirt weed and the money would being going in "Mom & Pop" and the state's pocket.  Pre-rolled and ready to go.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 24, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Dude, you know how great that would be, I would buy a pack of those for $20! It would be a safe, taxed product, we would be sure that we got our special blend, not some dirt weed and the money would being going in "Mom & Pop" and the state's pocket. Pre-rolled and ready to go.


 
In all seriousness, do you have any idea how many jobs would be created through the legalization of marijuana? 

Macon, a nearby city, used to experience growth year after year. Then, after all the lawsuits centered around tobacco, Brown & Williamson left town. 

Ever since, unemployment went up (this was just prior to the Great Recession) and along with it *CRIME*. Poeple can't find work and everyday I hear on the news about another conveinence store worker being beaten or killed during a robbery. Homeless fight for space under overpasses...it's ugly there. All because a major provider of employment was litigated and legislated out of business. 

If marijuana were legalized there's a chance they'd come back with the increase in demand. People would have good paying jobs, HEALTH INSURANCE, and money to stimulate the economy. 

But no, that's not a good enough reason is it. Instead, we'll just let the homeless and unemployed pander for handouts so they can afford to *DRINK* themselves silly and escape this harsh reality. 

...boggles the mind.


----------



## jarrod (Jul 24, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Instead, we'll just let the homeless and unemployed pander for handouts so they can afford to *DRINK* themselves silly and escape this harsh reality.



i see your point.  i guess we should outlaw alcohol.  

jf


----------



## Jimi (Jul 24, 2009)

*I posted this in response to BILL before. His opinion will not change I believe. Some just don't see beyond their own sphere.

*I hope some can understand that such crimes in all human society (B&E, Assualt, Thieft, Prostitution, Rape etc..) have existed way before MAN'S LAW to make any substance illegal. It is not purely a drug violence issue, man has committed such acts against others & even their own for more than a thousand years. Removing all DRUGS from our planet will no more rid us of violence than if we legalize or decrimialize all DRUGS. It is a human condition of personal faults, not that a DRUG has a mind of it's own and seeks out our beloved family members to hurt us all. When terrible things like that happen (What Bills Family had to face) , I blame the Man (Or Woman) involved, not any drug that is also in the mix. These terrible things happen in most all human society, and they also happen without drugs present as well. 
Some people are curious about possible medical applications from DRUGS such as Cocaine (Doctors use liquid cocaine during treatment of some sinus/septum issues) as well as Opium (Moraphine as used by Doctors to treat severe pain) and Marijuana (Can help Doctors treat several health issues) But I feel too many people are on a personal quest to punish drug dealers, so an understanding & compromise to find something usefull from these substances is lost. 
         Most who are for the legalization of *Marijuana* are also against the Hypocracey (BS) by our own leaders conducting corrupt law practices & enforcement of corrupt laws, that is where a lot of hippies stand (Stoned as they are, they have an honest gripe) and want to see their government honestly uphold reasonable law. Most hippies I know would gladly & non-violently pay their Marijuana tax, but we know that this is impossible because the laws currently on the books are not fair or reasonable (Relating to Herb that is) . I do not feel that decrimializing or legalizing Marijuana will stop violence, but killing drug dealers as explicitly expressed by Bill is not stopping violence either, as a matter of fact, it gives anger & violence a place to anchor it's self in our society. People kill each other over food & water as well, so violence for possession of anything is a human fault & should not be blamed on the substance it's self. 
 People kill each other in this nation over stupid materialistic possessions,( it is a disrespect for life issue not the item or possesssion issue) near DC years ago, a teenager demanded that someone in a theater give him his Air Jordans, when denied he stabbed thet guy to death & fled without getting the item of dispute. Also years ago on the Metro Rail in DC, another teenager demanded someones leather jacket, again when denied, the kid shot the man wearing the jacket to death and fled without the item of despute. Our society has serious issue with violence, some relating directly to drug trafficing & some having nothing to do with it at all. 
To end violence related to any Drug is not solved by the "Lets kill them all" attitude. I also believe that such violence is not solved by the "Make it all legal" attitude either. Such an issue is a GORDIAN KNOT to be solved, and it will not be easy. Unless you take Alexander The Greats (And Bills attitude) draw your sword and cut it to shreads.

*Bill, I have stated before that I believe what happened to your family member is terrible. I am truly sorry to know such a tragedy struck such a young child. Do not let your anger about that allow you to wrongly lay blame on an inanimate substance because you do not want to see the issue is with family member actions. 

It is not the case that pot was waiting around the corner for your family member to enact this crime. Lay due responsibility on the persons who's own actions caused this* *to happen and not a substance. People are responsible for their actions, not a substance (The devil made me do it) is a cop out. 

With Bills expressed violent attitude toward a substance and those who touch it, and knowing he trains in some martial art, I wonder what terrible act of violence (Vengence) he may be (Preparing for) capable of if faced with someone holding as little as a joint or as much as a big bag of crack. Do the laws stand with such empassioned violence cause the substance is illegal? Bill sounds as though he would personally act as  Gods & our Nations Hand of Law if anyone dared opposed his DIVINE LAW. 

People have faults, even those who govern us. Lets deal with that rather than assessing blame on a substance and wage war on it. Many of our laws are full of faults, we should strive to work it all out for the better, not pressure lawmakers to do what makes us feel better (As if it were to avenge a family members misfortune) by upholding corrupt law practices. (I also noted the Aslinger tax stamp fraud used to help freight-train law past our congress to empower another marijuanna hate monger) That helps nothing but your own personal pain rather than the truth about people & substances.

The majority that WANTS to keep it illegal (Or do not want it researched for good use) are quite uniformed about the truth of marijuanna itself and the twisted corrupt laws that judge over it.

Bill, I hope you get over it as I do hope your family members can move on to an enjoyable life. But I do not see the legalization of marijuanna (If it does ever happen) as adding any suffering to you or your family. As I said, It is a human fault issue, not that the evil weed is out to get us all. I am more concerned about other corrupt issues within our governing bodies than wether HERB is legal or not. 

I realize I reiterated more than a bit, but from this debate I feel many just are not hearing what seems to be damned clear.
*


----------



## Jimi (Jul 24, 2009)

*Just FYI, This is also something i posted in rebuttal to Bill.*

Bill, I have discussed this with you before and I am still disappointed to see you prefer to see *violence* done to any drug dealer ( Big time coke dealer or college kid passing on herb). So I make this point, this thread was started to discuss if Legalizing Drugs to stop violence will work. Many here seem to think it is not that clear cut (Pot, Coke, China White, whatever,they are all different substances & will have differing effects if legal) but it seems that as long as any drugs are still illegal you wish to be *violent* and *kill* convicted drug dealers of any substance. So why ask the question? Then if your opinion on the legalization of drugs (Which you make it sound as though your opinion is the voice of all our nation) can stop violence when you yourself subscribe to the execution of dealers. 
It is illegal = I want them *KILLED*. If it becomes legal = I want them *KILLED* anyway. Seems you are more for violence regardless of a drugs legal or illegal status. That is VIOLENT all around man.
With that said Bill, again, I am sorry that drug use and a family members choices have caused you pain, misery and even suffering. 
I can understand you are empassioned, but this topic is about LEGALIZE DRUGS TO STOP VIOLENCE? How does that help to prevent Violence? *Don't do what I hate & I won't kill you!?* Marijuana will not become Legal for many many years if ever at all. Same for other drugs. Your posts also touch on how our nation & govmt work out these things which is great resource man, but our own govmt has twisted its own works from with-in. Look into how Marijuana was made illegal and then one mans obsession against it who enevitably set things up with-in our laws to make a Marijuana tax stamp. The Govmt then offered a tax stamp for it to be taxed but keep it illegal and made it manditory for a farmer to get the tax stamp, he must have the Marijuana in hand to get the stamp. When a farmer showed up with any Marijuana in hand to get the supposed legal tax stamp they arrested him for possession. Do you really think that after the govmt can be twisted like this against its own people trying to be law abiding, that people would trust the govmt to not be as faulty as any other corupt person can be? That is just an example. 
 So do you think that after this loop hole catch 22 by a man Harry Anslinger? (Kinda sounds like you with an obession against DRUGS) that his only mistake was not to execute the farmers who applied for the tax stamp with herb in hand? I am simply playing devils advocate opposing Bill here since i feel Bills posts are a little extreme as well. I am not pushing for Marijuana to be Legal in my opinion here, just pointing out that Bill sounds Violent if drugs are Legal or not. Again, how does that help? Other than making Bill feel better about his familys misfortune by stating how he would like to see drug dealers killed.

*I feel Bill will only see things his way and we are all lost souls.*


----------



## jarrod (Jul 24, 2009)

Joab said:


> It wouldn't matter if it was on the books because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that sodomy can not be made illegal. However the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution is the law of the land, you probaly already know that.



true, however the sentiment seems to be that the law is the law & should be obeyed, even if it is unjust & unenforceable.  i'm just trying to figure out how far that extends.  

jf


----------



## jim777 (Jul 24, 2009)

jarrod said:


> true, however the sentiment seems to be that the law is the law & should be obeyed, even if it is unjust & unenforceable. i'm just trying to figure out how far that extends.
> 
> jf


 
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this." - Albert Einstein


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 25, 2009)

jim777 said:


> "The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this." - Albert Einstein


 
Apparently some fancy themselves smarter than old Al.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 25, 2009)

jim777 said:


> "The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this." - Albert Einstein



Albert, laying it on all sexy and logical like he always does.


----------



## DergaSmash (Jul 26, 2009)

There is a good book about the other benefits of legalization. Its called "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." Very eye opening in fact.

What about all the other stuff that can be done with it?

Hemp can be made into many different things that we use. Paper, plastics, clothing, etc.

It is a tough plant, meaning it can grow almost anywhere and requires little in terms of maintenance. It also makes great biofuel which could serve to get the states off it's addiction to foreign oil.

But then again, hippy is just one step from Communist......whatever.


----------

