# Should we Legalize marijuana?



## Sensei Payne (Jun 22, 2011)

I know this topic has probably been beat to death...but there is a new article out.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/22/barney-frank-and-ron-paul-will

I got kind of excited when I heard my favorite 2012 Presidential Candidate is helping start the bill..it really would be about time for it.



> Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will introduce "bi-partisan legislation tomorrow ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states legalize, regulate, tax, and control marijuana without federal interference,"


----------



## Big Don (Jun 22, 2011)

Several states, California is one, have legalized, so called medical marijuana. The net result? Damn few investigations or prosecutions for any marijuana dealing. The federal government's response? Nothing, none whatsoever.
BTW, I'm not surprised the truther likes this idea...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 22, 2011)

It's only illegal because the tobacco and cotton industries have much better lobbyists. 

Medically it's beneficial, for fabrics it's durable, and as far as 'harmful' goes, tobacco and booze are much worse.

legalize it, tax it, and put similar restrictions on as tobacco and booze.
I predict, we're fine.

gay nazi zombies will not ride dinos while the nation burns.
I promise.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2011)

Legalize it, tax the **** out of it, put some dealers out of business-make some others legal. Sounds good to me.


----------



## astrobiologist (Jun 23, 2011)

Yes, we should legalize it.  I mean, we all know how well prohibition worked for alcohol, right?  

If we would like to stop adding to the drug cartel problems of latin american countries, if we'd like to help our economy by having a tax on a recreational and medicinal substance that many americans choose to use illegally right now, and if we would like to stop being the nation with the largest prison population and show the world that we can think progressively and help those who want to use recreational drugs to make smart decisions then we should totally legalize it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 23, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> gay nazi zombies will not ride dinos while the nation burns.
> I promise.



heh, they will if some folks smoke enough of it... :lol:  remember it is a mild hallucinogenic


----------



## Omar B (Jun 23, 2011)

Yes.  That is all.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 23, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Several states, California is one, have legalized, so called medical marijuana. The net result? Damn few investigations or prosecutions for any marijuana dealing. The federal government's response? Nothing, none whatsoever.
> BTW, I'm not surprised the truther likes this idea...


 

For the Record, this is an honest to God Statement.

I have NEVER smoked anything in my entire life.  I don't like the smell, and honestly it really just sounds gross to me.  

I feel that if people want to put something into there body...big brother shouldn't be able to tell you that you can't.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 23, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Legalize it, tax the **** out of it, put some dealers out of business-make some others legal. Sounds good to me.


 

And it might be a boost to the junk food industry.


----------



## poollshark (Jun 23, 2011)

Yes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#

This is a link to a documentary called "The Union". I suggest that everyone should watch it. One of the biggest proponents of Marijuana legalization is Joe Rogan who is one of the many people interviewed for this film along with many high ranking police officials, politicians, college professors etc. 
I especially recommend this for those who don't agree with legalization, get educated and make an informed decision.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 23, 2011)

Yes, it should be legalized.  As a mind-altering substance, marijuana is no worse than alcohol or tobacco.  I'm not arguing for the criminalization of the latter two, but if they're legal substances, it's a logical disconnect to say that marijuana should not be one.  

All other problems involving weed stem (no pun intended) from its illegality.  Legalize it, regulate it, free up court & jail space, and watch the junk food industry skyrocket.  Win-win.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 23, 2011)

Other pluses:
- Crime rates would drop freeing police and courts to pursue more of the danger to society types rather than danger to snack food types.
- Economic benis as legal sales would add revenues to stores and municipalities.
- Decrease in 'dealers' and gangs due to removal of black-market
- Increase in life quality for those needing it medicinally as easier access and removal of prosecution phase in.

Also, don't forget, food sales will increase too.  Also, "The Munchies" will be petitioned to Congress as a disease thereby giving our elected oafs something to do to justify their existence.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> gay nazi zombies will not ride dinos while the nation burns.
> I promise.



I would not mind that as much as what will happen.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

astrobiologist said:


> Yes, we should legalize it.  I mean, we all know how well prohibition worked for alcohol, right?



Specious argument.  Prohibition also fails to stop the child sex slave trade.  Shall we legalize that as well?  Your logic says we should.



> If we would like to stop adding to the drug cartel problems of latin american countries,



Drug cartels will cease to exist because they don't have a market for pot anymore?  I guess they'll just give up on cocaine, crack, heroin, etc.



> if we'd like to help our economy by having a tax on a recreational and medicinal substance that many americans choose to use illegally right now,



Uncle Sam, pimp and drug lord.  Sounds great.



> and if we would like to stop being the nation with the largest prison population and show the world that we can think progressively and help those who want to use recreational drugs to make smart decisions then we should totally legalize it.



Not interested in 'showing the world' anything at all.  They do what they want, we do what we want.  We are not them, and kissing their pucker is not something I'd advise.  Word of experience here - the world hates us no matter what we do.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> As a mind-altering substance, marijuana is no worse than alcohol or tobacco.



Sez you.



> All other problems involving weed stem (no pun intended) from its illegality.  Legalize it, regulate it, free up court & jail space, and watch the junk food industry skyrocket.  Win-win.



You can make the same argument for child pornography (except for the junk food part).  That make it OK, then?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

Funny how the same people who in favor of the government's right to regulate the food we eat on the basis that it is 'bad for us', also tend to favor drug legalization, even though no burning substance sucked into the lungs could ever be called anything but unhealthy.  Wonder why?  Oh yeah, they like pot but don't like people eating Twinkies.  Hypocrites.

The reason pot is illegal is because the majority of the country wants it that way.  That's a good enough reason.  I am part of that majority.  Things are changing, so the laws may change.  If it does, it does.  I still won't like it.  But as long as I have a vote, I'll vote 'no' on legalization.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 23, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> It's only illegal because the tobacco and cotton industries have much better lobbyists.
> 
> Medically it's beneficial, for fabrics it's durable, and as far as 'harmful' goes, tobacco and booze are much worse.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Funny how the same people who in favor of the government's right to regulate the food we eat on the basis that it is 'bad for us', also tend to favor drug legalization, even though no burning substance sucked into the lungs could ever be called anything but unhealthy. Wonder why? Oh yeah, they like pot but don't like people eating Twinkies. Hypocrites.
> 
> The reason pot is illegal is because the majority of the country wants it that way. That's a good enough reason. I am part of that majority. Things are changing, so the laws may change. If it does, it does. I still won't like it. But as long as I have a vote, I'll vote 'no' on legalization.


 
Not exactly accurate.

I don't like pot. I don't use it. I also think it should be legal.

Regulation of foods and drugs is intended to ensure than when you buy a steak, it's a steak, not your neighbors cat. And when you buy tylenol, it's actually tylenol. It's not intended to prevent abuse. After all, if that where the case, people could get arrested for being fat, since obviously they're over-using (abusing) food.

The purpose of govt is not to protect people from their own stupidity. If you want to drink a gallon of vodka a day, it's legal. And I know people who do just that. If you want to smoke 2-3 packs of cigarettes a day, it's legal. And I know people who do just that.

If you want to destroy your mind and your body by whatever means, be it alcohol, tobacco, pot, crack... go for it. I don't care.

I only care when you make it societies problem. When you drive or do anything else that puts others at risk because of these drugs (and that includes alcohol and tobacco) then I care. I think punishments should be severe.

And when your liver fails from the booze, or you can't breath because of the crap you've inhaled, just remember: self inflicted, don't whine.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not exactly accurate.
> 
> I don't like pot. I don't use it. I also think it should be legal.
> 
> Regulation of foods and drugs is intended to ensure than when you buy a steak, it's a steak, not your neighbors cat. And when you buy tylenol, it's actually tylenol. It's not intended to prevent abuse. After all, if that where the case, people could get arrested for being fat, since obviously they're over-using (abusing) food.



You're missing the thread where the liberals are calling for the regulation of ingredients in processed food on the basis that it is _'unhealthy'_ and _'costs us money in terms of increased health care costs'_.  If that argument is legitimate, then those same people should be against the legalization of pot.



> The purpose of govt is not to protect people from their own stupidity.



Agreed.  But there are several comments in the next thread over that say exactly that, more or less.



> If you want to drink a gallon of vodka a day, it's legal. And I know people who do just that. If you want to smoke 2-3 packs of cigarettes a day, it's legal. And I know people who do just that.
> 
> If you want to destroy your mind and your body by whatever means, be it alcohol, tobacco, pot, crack... go for it. I don't care.



I don't care either.  Except I don't want pot or crack to be legal.



> I only care when you make it societies problem. When you drive or do anything else that puts others at risk because of these drugs (and that includes alcohol and tobacco) then I care. I think punishments should be severe.



I want pot dealers to be executed, and pot smokers to spend time in prison.  If it were up to me, that would be the law.  If given the choice, that's how I vote.



> And when your liver fails from the booze, or you can't breath because of the crap you've inhaled, just remember: self inflicted, don't whine.



I'm hip.  But I don't like pot and I don't want it to be legal.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sez you.
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the same argument for child pornography (except for the junk food part). That make it OK, then?


 
Child pornography is illegal because a minor is too young to give consent or even realize the consequences of their actions. That has nothing to do with legalizing pot, and you know it. 

And yeah, I do sez so. I've smoked pot (albeit only a couple of times) and I've gotten really drunk (alot more than a couple of times). There is no reason for the former to be illegal if the latter is not. Both can be abused, both can be used moderately, both have risks, both can lead to personal harm or harm to others if used irresponsibly.  Yet one is legal, the other is not.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm hip. But *I don't like pot and I don't want it to be legal*.


 
And this is where Bill will always stand on this issue, in something of a departure from his usual rationality-it's an emotional one for him, for personal reasons. I can dig that-he gets to vote, and even to try to convince some of us to his way of thinking, but his "reasons" aren't convincing at all.


For instance:




Bill Mattocks said:


> You're missing the thread where the liberals are calling for the regulation of ingredients in processed food on the basis that it is _'unhealthy'_ and _'costs us money in terms of increased health care costs'_. If that argument is legitimate, then those same people should be against the legalization of pot.


 
But that's not what *Bill* is arguing in that thread. If his arguments there:



Bill Mattocks said:


> What we're doing now - provide information and educate. That is the proper role of government with regard to public health.
> 
> The problem is always the same with liberals. They say they want to modify behavior by informing and educating, and that's great. But if it doesn't work, then they suggest incentives to do the healthy thing. And if that doesn't work, they suggest disincentives to do the unhealthy thing. And when people persist in doing something unhealthy, then they finally show their true *colors - force them to do the 'healthy' thing whether they like it or not.*
> 
> ...


 

have any validity,then pot should be legal, though,_ for him_, there's some sort of difference , and , in defiance of his usual rationality and equanimity, the two do not equate, and he cannot be rational or dispassionate about this issue.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 23, 2011)

elder999 said:


> in defiance of his usual rationality and equanimity, the two do not equate, and he cannot be rational or dispassionate about this issue.


 
or religion.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Child pornography is illegal because a minor is too young to give consent or even realize the consequences of their actions. That has nothing to do with legalizing pot, and you know it.



Nothing to do with legalizing pot?  Not at all, no.  I was attacking your logic, which is that since there is no way to stop it, it should be legalized.  I replied that there are lots of things that can't be stopped, should they all be legalized?  If not (and it appears you agree with me), then your logic is flawed.  That's not a good reason to legalize it.



> And yeah, I do sez so. I've smoked pot (albeit only a couple of times) and I've gotten really drunk (alot more than a couple of times). There is no reason for the former to be illegal if the latter is not.



No reason in YOUR opinion.  Sorry, you don't speak for me, any more than I do you.



> Both can be abused, both can be used moderately, both have risks, both can lead to personal harm or harm to others if used irresponsibly.  Yet one is legal, the other is not.



Yes, one is legal and the other is not.  Grenades and semi-automatic weapons.  Both can be abused, both can be used moderately, both have risks, both can lead to personal harm or harm to others if used irresponsibly. Yet one is legal, the other is not.

Again, if your logic is the reason for your opinion, your logic is flawed.  You might want to rethink your opinion based on that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

elder999 said:


> And this is where Bill will always stand on this issue, in something of a departure from his usual rationality-it's an emotional one for him, for personal reasons. I can dig that-he gets to vote, and even to try to convince some of us to his way of thinking, but his "reasons" aren't convincing at all.



True.  But I am not trying to convince anyone to see things my way in this case.  I have stated my opinion, and I've poked holes in faulty logic.  

I have pointed out the flaw in the _"we can't stop it anyway, so we should legalize it" _argument.  It's poor logic, since there are many things we cannot stop, but do not therefore condone.

I have pointed out the flaw in the _"there are other dangerous things that are allowed, so this should be allowed also"_ argument.  Also poor logic, since there are dangerous things that we do not allow besides pot (hand grenades, for example).

I have pointed out the flaw in the _"it will stop drug trafficking"_ argument, since it should be pretty clear to everyone that drug traffickers traffic drugs - all kinds of drugs - and are unlikely to stop just because they lose one source of income.

I will take this opportunity to point out the flaw in the _"it will reduce prison population"_ argument, since the same would be true of releasing child molesters.  Some people we want in prison.

I have pointed out the _hypocrisy_ in advocating for government control of what goes into processed food (the other thread on MT I mentioned) on the basis that it is a) unhealthy and b) costs us money in increased health care costs and NOT taking the same stand with regard to smoking pot, which is, by all opinions, not a 'healthy' practice.

I have opined that this hypocrisy is due a cardinal attribute of liberals, and suggested the real reason for it is because they like to smoke pot, but they don't like other people eating food they deem to be unhealthy.  Just an opinion.

I have argued that the true reason for pot to be legal or illegal rests at the ballot box, and that there is not a logical or scientific or medical or tax-based reason sufficient to cause the will of the people to be ignored.  I have even acknowledged that public sentiment is changing towards legalization, and although I do not like it personally, that's the way it goes.

I will further add that _in my opinion_, the same people who are against the 'tyranny of the majority' today with regard to pot legalization will be quite silent on the matter when they are the majority and pot is legal.

I am, I believe, consistent in my statements.  Personal beliefs are personal beliefs.  But flaws in logic cannot be ignored.  If one is basing their opinion on what amounts to faulty reasoning, they may wish to reconsider their opinions.  Repeated statements that _"we can't stop it anyway,"_ and _"it's not that bad for you"_ or _"there are other things that are legal that are worse for you"_ and things of that nature do not get it.  First, they can't prove that, and second, the logic sucks.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> True. But I am not trying to convince anyone to see things my way in this case. I have stated my opinion, and I've poked holes in faulty logic. .


 

How about this then: the only reason pot was made illegal was to keep people from making their own cloth out of hemp, and to keep black musicians from sleeping with white women.

Really.

There is no _logical_ reason for pot to be illegal in the first place.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 23, 2011)

Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana 
http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267223/Why_We_Should_Not_Legalize_Marijuana

Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889021,00.html

Should We Legalize Marijuana?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614230731506644.html

Why shouldn't marijuana be legalized?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_shouldn't_marijuana_be_legalized

As for what I think... I do not think it should be... and my reasons... I am just not that big a fan of Bob Marley Music and I don't much like Hostess Twinkies


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Nothing to do with legalizing pot? Not at all, no. I was attacking your logic, which is that since there is no way to stop it, it should be legalized. I replied that there are lots of things that can't be stopped, should they all be legalized? If not (and it appears you agree with me), then your logic is flawed. That's not a good reason to legalize it.


 
Non-enforceability is not one of the reasons I cited. I don't like that reason for legalizing things either, I think it's nonsensical. But that came from you, not me.



> No reason in YOUR opinion. Sorry, you don't speak for me, any more than I do you.


 
So you think that marijuana is closer to crack cocaine or crystal meth than tobacco or alcohol? Disregard illegality for this part, as I was addressing it's mind-altering qualities and effects on the body. 



> Yes, one is legal and the other is not. Grenades and semi-automatic weapons. Both can be abused, both can be used moderately, both have risks, both can lead to personal harm or harm to others if used irresponsibly. Yet one is legal, the other is not.


 
Guess what, Bill, even if a stupid law doesn't involve a constitutional right, its still open to discussion. Things get put on the books and voted on by the public for far more reasons than whether it's a good idea. I believe Bob was addressing that point with the lobbyists post. Your repeated attempts to bludgeon this topic down with "well the majority voted it so nyuh" is kinda baffling, given your critical eye on other topics.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I will further add that _in my opinion_, the same people who are against the 'tyranny of the majority' today with regard to pot legalization will be quite silent on the matter when they are the majority and pot is legal.


 
The minor, almost academically technical difference being that in the second case, YOU ARE STILL FREE TO NOT SMOKE POT!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

elder999 said:


> How about this then: the only reason pot was made illegal was to keep people from making their own cloth out of hemp, and to keep black musicians from sleeping with white women.
> 
> Really.
> 
> There is no _logical_ reason for pot to be illegal in the first place.



True.

I have only my emotionally-based opinions in this case.  I am not arguing otherwise.

But I do not have to have a logic reason to be against it.  I just can't use faulty logic to be for or against it.  Emotion is not faulty logic, it's not logic at all.  It's valid, for personal beliefs.  It's just not a good basis for argument.

That there is no logical reason to be against something is not a logic reason to be for it.  I have no logical reason to dislike broccoli.  But I'll be damned if that means I like it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 23, 2011)

.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> The minor, almost academically technical difference being that in the second case, YOU ARE STILL FREE TO NOT SMOKE POT!



I am also free to not want anyone to smoke it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Non-enforceability is not one of the reasons I cited. I don't like that reason for legalizing things either, I think it's nonsensical. But that came from you, not me.



My apologies for my lack of understanding of your statements, then.



> So you think that marijuana is closer to crack cocaine or crystal meth than tobacco or alcohol? Disregard illegality for this part, as I was addressing it's mind-altering qualities and effects on the body.



Yes.



> Guess what, Bill, even if a stupid law doesn't involve a constitutional right, its still open to discussion. Things get put on the books and voted on by the public for far more reasons than whether it's a good idea. I believe Bob was addressing that point with the lobbyists post. Your repeated attempts to bludgeon this topic down with "well the majority voted it so nyuh" is kinda baffling, given your critical eye on other topics.



I always support the right of the majority to order society the way they wish it to be, so long as it does not violate Constitutional rights.

I do this over loud objections from people who point out that we live in a representative republic, and not a democracy, which I actually agree with, or that our government was designed to not allow the will of the majority to trump the will of the minority, which is not the case at all.  I don't even know where they get this notion.

The only time I oppose majority rule is when it infringes on constitutional rights, as I said.  And that's not an easy road to walk, because it means sometimes I find myself in support of the right of people I dislike doing things that they have the right to do.

But make no mistake, I support the will of the majority with regard to pot legalization, as I see no constitutional impediment to it being legal or illegal.  Let the majority rule.  That does not mean I am for legalization though.  I support majority rule; that does not mean I agree with the majority.  At the moment, I am in the majority, if only slightly.  In the future, I will probably be in the minority.  I will accept the rule of the majority in this case, because I accept the rule of law.  I just won't like it.

Yes, laws are made for all sorts of reasons, logical, illogical, money-based, religion-based, even hatred-based.  You name it.  There are really only two criteria.  Was the law passed according to our rules of governance (ie, legally) and is the law Constitutional?  There is nothing that says a law has to conform to any other rules at all.

My argument here is only that if one wants to use logic as their stated reason for being in favor of the legalization of marijuana, then they'd better use good logic, or I'll tear it apart.  I don't have any good logic in support of it remaining illegal, just personal opinion; and I've stated that.  If I try to throw up some phony logic, feel free to have at me.


----------



## poollshark (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> True.
> 
> I have only my emotionally-based opinions in this case.  I am not arguing otherwise.
> 
> ...


Do you try to stop others from eating broccoli? 

I understand your reasoning. Do you understand that you are trying to  impose your morality on others? Do you drink alcoholic beverages? Do you  smoke cigarettes? Do you drink caffeinated coffee? 

For the record, I've smoked and yes, I've even inhaled:eye-popping: 

I am for legalization for what I think are very good reasons. Personal  freedom to make my own choices regarding what I put into my my body  being at the top of the list. It's a freedom I would never try to take  away from you.

Again...... education and.....uh.....education. 

Start here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#

There are examples out there that show how legalization handled properly can be good for the masses. The Netherlands instantly comes to mind.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67

I won't lie, I am trying to change your mind because I can't honestly see how any educated reasonable person could be against it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 23, 2011)

Considering I know a few people (at least 1 on this site) who use pot for pain relief (legally), I have to question Bills seeming irrational and unusual desire to see them put against a wall and executed.

As to Constitutional...well, we all know Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew hemp, and were both  passionate advocates for increasing hemp production in the United  States. Oh wait...that's overlooked. But what would Jefferson know about the Constitution?

Are there health risks?
Yep.
Funny thing....my blood pressure meds have a few -pages- of risks.
Ibuprophen can cause bleeding in your brain and kidney failure.
Grilled Steak increases your chances of cancer too.

List the risks, let people weigh them out, and get out of their way.

I don't smoke. Pot or anything else.
But I dislike the NannyState trying to 'save' me from myself.
Not it's job. In my, and a certain Mr. Jefferson's view.

Course I also believe every neighborhood should have a Abrams on hand, but that's another discussion. 

http://www.theweedblog.com/heavy-marijuana-use-does-not-affect-intelligence-or-cognition/
http://californiapotblog.com/tag/thomas-jefferson-pot/

Now please excuse me...I suddenly have the munchies.


----------



## Steve (Jun 23, 2011)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92273
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92719
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=93793

Come on guys. This has been worked to death. Just read the other threads and save us all from rehashing exactly the same posts.  After many posts, and a lot of hand wringing, it always boils down to some people just not liking it, and logic be damned. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes for hurt feelings, and unnecessary amounts of conflict.

PS EDIT:  I am for legalizing pot, and that's how I vote when it comes up on a ballot.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

poollshark said:


> Do you try to stop others from eating broccoli?



No, I do not.  I also do not have any personal desire to do so.  I do have a personal desire to stop people from smoking pot.



> I understand your reasoning. Do you understand that you are trying to  impose your morality on others?



Not my morality - my will.  I see nothing inherently immoral about smoking pot.  I just don't want anyone to be allowed to do it.



> Do you drink alcoholic beverages?



Not anymore; diabetes.



> Do you  smoke cigarettes?



Not anymore, I quit some years ago.



> Do you drink caffeinated coffee?



About half a pot a day.



> For the record, I've smoked and yes, I've even inhaled:eye-popping:



Yay you, I guess.



> I am for legalization for what I think are very good reasons. Personal  freedom to make my own choices regarding what I put into my my body  being at the top of the list. It's a freedom I would never try to take  away from you.



I'm all for personal freedom as well.  But no freedoms are absolute.  While I think you should be able to eat the foods you wish, and smoke the tobacco you want, and drink the booze you desire, I do not think you should smoke the marijuana you want to.  Nor shoot the heroin, nor snort the cocaine, and so on.



> Again...... education and.....uh.....education.



Save your effort. I grew up a child of the 1960's.  I read the articles when they were new.  I subscribed to "High Times," and I read all the literature NORML ever put out.  I am not swayed.



> I won't lie, I am trying to change your mind because I can't honestly see how any educated reasonable person could be against it.



You will not change my mind, not ever.  My opinion is the result of my personal family experiences.  If you want to know what those are, PM me.  I have been asked not to say them in public here on MT again and I understand the reasoning.  Let's call my experiences 'intense' and leave it at that.  To me, you're just a guy with a Bible tract at my front door.  Not now, not ever, keep steppin', brother.  Sorry, you're wasting your time trying to convince me.  But thank you for the 'educated' and 'reasonable' comments; may I say likewise.  But educated and reasonable people can disagree.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 23, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Legalize it, tax the **** out of it, put some dealers out of business-make some others legal. Sounds good to me.



this


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Considering I know a few people (at least 1 on this site) who use pot for pain relief (legally), I have to question Bills seeming irrational and unusual desire to see them put against a wall and executed.



Only the dealers.



> As to Constitutional...well, we all know Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew hemp, and were both  passionate advocates for increasing hemp production in the United  States. Oh wait...that's overlooked. But what would Jefferson know about the Constitution?



I'm all for growing hemp too.  It's a good product and should be legal.

First, there's no evidence that Washington or Jefferson grew it to smoke it.  They grew it for what it is very good for - paper and cloth.

Second, hemp has extremely little THC in it.  You could smoke it all day and not get high.  I have no objection to morons giving themselves headaches by trying.

Third, pot smoked today for recreational (or 'pain') purposes is about 6 to 15 times stronger than pot smoked for recreation back in the 60's and 70's, and thousands of times more potent than the kind of ditchweed the Founders grew to make rope.

Make no mistake, I am not against hemp.  I am against pot, and by that I mean the smoking kind.



> Are there health risks?
> Yep.
> Funny thing....my blood pressure meds have a few -pages- of risks.
> Ibuprophen can cause bleeding in your brain and kidney failure.
> Grilled Steak increases your chances of cancer too.



Yes.  they can.  Again, the fact that something is more dangerous or less dangerous than some other thing is not a logical reason to be for it.  I can cite many things that are less dangerous than other things and yet they still are illegal and most people agree they should be.  It's just not a logical argument.



> List the risks, let people weigh them out, and get out of their way.



We have, and people did.  They voted.  Pot remains illegal for recreational use in most of the USA.



> I don't smoke. Pot or anything else.
> But I dislike the NannyState trying to 'save' me from myself.



I agree.  I'm not trying to save you from yourself.  Have fun stormin' the castle, sez I. I just don't want anyone to be allowed to smoke pot.  Nothing personal - and not because I care about your pancreas or whatever.



> Not it's job. In my, and a certain Mr. Jefferson's view.



I agree that a 'nanny state' reason would be a very poor reason indeed.  Fortunately, that's not my reason.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> First, there's no evidence that Washington or Jefferson grew it to smoke it. They grew it for what it is very good for - paper and cloth..


 
In one of his meticulous agricultural journals, dated 1765, Washington regrets being late to separate his male hemp plants from his females. For a master farmer like George, there would be little reason to do this except to make the females ripe for smoking.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

elder999 said:


> In one of his meticulous agricultural journals, dated 1765, Washington regrets being late to separate his male hemp plants from his females. For a master farmer like George, there would be little reason to do this except to make the females ripe for smoking.



You mean little reason that pro-marijuana scholars can think of. Many have pointed out that hemp was being experimented with for it's medicinal value - not necessarily for getting high for recreational purposes.  There's no real way to know which.  There is even argument that Washington did it to produce better hemp fiber.  No idea.  

However, _"THE BOTANIST'S and GARDENER'S NEW DICTIONARY"_ published in 1763, explains how male hemp is gathered at one time in the season and is most fit for one purpose, and female hemp is gathered at another time in the seasons and is most fit for a different purpose.  That seems to be a quite logical reason to separate them, to me.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QS...emp&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q=growing hemp&f=false

I've been down this road before.  I actually find the scholarship entertaining, and if I thought there was evidence for the Founders smoking pot, I'd certainly admit it.  It would not change my opinion of whether or not pot should be legal to smoke ("Oh dear, George Washington toked a bowl now and then, it must be OK!"), nor would it change the historical reality of hemp as a cash crop for cloth and paper and rope.  Hemp was a huge player in the early years of our nation, and in my opinion, should be again.


----------



## poollshark (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You will not change my mind, not ever.  My opinion is the result of my personal family experiences.  If you want to know what those are, PM me.  I have been asked not to say them in public here on MT again and I understand the reasoning.  Let's call my experiences 'intense' and leave it at that.



Okay.



> To me, you're just a guy with a Bible tract at my front door.  Not now, not ever, keep steppin', brother.


Don't think I've ever been compared quite like that before....lol



> Sorry, you're wasting your time trying to convince me.  But thank you for the 'educated' and 'reasonable' comments; may I say likewise.  But educated and reasonable people can disagree.


Yes they can.

Let me just leave you with some food for thought as this reminded me of an old proverb one of my professor's used to constantly quote:

A wise man changes his mind, a fool never will

 I understand personal experiences can have a strong effect  on a  persons opinion. Agreeing to disagree here seems to be our only  option.  

Have a great day Mr. Mattocks


----------



## MJS (Jun 23, 2011)

Some states, the one I live in being one of them, are currently working on making possession, a lesser offense, depending on how much you have.  So before, you'd probably get hauled in, possibly sent to jail, etc, whereas now its an infraction.

Do I think it should be made legal?  Honestly, I could care less.  I dont use it, never have, and never will.  If its made legal, just like alcohol, then treat it just like that, meaning taxes, you have to be a certain age, and if you get caught for a DUI, then the same charges apply.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, I do not.  I also do not have any personal desire to do so.  *I do have a personal desire to stop people from smoking pot.*
> Not my morality - *my will*.  I see nothing inherently immoral about smoking pot.  *I just don't want anyone to be allowed to do it.*



And there is the impasse.  He wishes to choose for all.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 24, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92273
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92719
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=93793
> 
> ...


 
There could be new members with new input this time around so its always good to get several sides of the issues as time goes on...with any topic, it evolves and changes with time.

As for Pot being legal...yeah it really should be. I have never heard of a pot head being violent...pot mixed with other drugs, perhaps, but not just pot.

It would free up our prison systems and make room for the real criminals, like Theives, Rapists and Murders.

Of course taxing it would also help clear up our deficets in this country, and pot such an untapped resourse.

As for personal opinions on the matter...everyone is entitled to there opinion of course, which is why I belive the pot issues should be hadled at state level, and not federal.  If you don't like your states laws..its a whole lot easier to change laws at the state level than it is at the federal one, and the states will be able to change the laws as the people see fit. This in turn frees up our federal government to work on REAL issues like the Economy, Health Care, and Forgien Affairs.

All in all if you are a constitutionalist or a libritarian, or even one of those Tea Partier, you be default shouldn't be aginst legalizing it.  It only seems to be those of the two party system that doesn't want the legalization to pass. Although there are a few exceptions.  

The people should be able to choose how to live there lives and what to put in there bodies, as long as they are informed on the product they are intaking into there body.  
For example: if you wanna eat Mcdonalds everyday, you should be well informed of the nutritian value of what you are eating and be informed that...you will get fat, and in turn be responsible for yourself.  Information is key here, not conjecture or opinion, but science.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 24, 2011)

Omar B said:


> And there is the impasse.  He wishes to choose for all.



Everybody does.  However, I realize I have only the authority of one vote.  As it turns out, at the moment, the people who think like I do have the majority (a slight one, and slipping) and thus our will is law in many states.  When that balance changes, then the laws will as well.  Then you will decide 'for all'.  This is how it works.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 24, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> As for Pot being legal...yeah it really should be. I have never heard of a pot head being violent...pot mixed with other drugs, perhaps, but not just pot.



Violence or lack therefore is no reason to make a substance legal or illegal.



> It would free up our prison systems and make room for the real criminals, like Theives, Rapists and Murders.



Invalid logic, as I've already pointed out in this thread.  We'd be able to 'free up our prison system' if we let child molesters out.  Some people we want to be in prison.



> Of course taxing it would also help clear up our deficets in this country, and pot such an untapped resourse.



So is sex trafficking and black market cigarettes.  The fact that a market exists is no reason to legalize it.  We can tax lots of things that are illegal and most of us wish to remain illegal.



> As for personal opinions on the matter...everyone is entitled to there opinion of course, which is why I belive the pot issues should be hadled at state level, and not federal.  If you don't like your states laws..its a whole lot easier to change laws at the state level than it is at the federal one, and the states will be able to change the laws as the people see fit. This in turn frees up our federal government to work on REAL issues like the Economy, Health Care, and Forgien Affairs.



I tend to agree with you on this issue, believe it or not.



> All in all if you are a constitutionalist or a libritarian, or even one of those Tea Partier, you be default shouldn't be aginst legalizing it.  It only seems to be those of the two party system that doesn't want the legalization to pass. Although there are a few exceptions.



When I left the Republican Party, I joined the Libertarian Party.  I left because I could not reconcile myself to two major planks.  One was drug legalization - all drugs - and the other was a policy of national isolationism.  Could not agree with either one.  Now I'm an independent conservative (or 'liberal' if you ask Twin Fist).



> The people should be able to choose how to live there lives and what to put in there bodies, as long as they are informed on the product they are intaking into there body.
> For example: if you wanna eat Mcdonalds everyday, you should be well informed of the nutritian value of what you are eating and be informed that...you will get fat, and in turn be responsible for yourself.  Information is key here, not conjecture or opinion, but science.



Those who make this argument are seldom willing to agree that heroin should be legalized, and yet it is the same logic.  So unless you think that everyone should be free to smoke crack and drop acid and snort coke and shoot heroin, that is also invalid logic.

I agree with you about state's rights.  I agree with you that everyone has a right to their opinion.  I disagree with you about your flat statement that pot is harmless - you don't know that and can't prove it, and the rest of your logic is invalid for reasons mentioned.  In the end, you have an opinion unsupported by facts; as do I.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 24, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Violence or lack therefore is no reason to make a substance legal or illegal.


 
If it doesn't hurt anyone, besides the user, knowingly using the substance, then why not make it legal. Its there body they can do what they want with it. Any other crime commited while on the substance, is completely seperate.





Bill Mattocks said:


> Invalid logic, as I've already pointed out in this thread. We'd be able to 'free up our prison system' if we let child molesters out. Some people we want to be in prison.


 
Child molesters actually hurt people, a majority of pot smokers, do not.





Bill Mattocks said:


> So is sex trafficking and black market cigarettes. The fact that a market exists is no reason to legalize it. We can tax lots of things that are illegal and most of us wish to remain illegal.


 
Sex trafficking is illegal because it hurts people. Personally I think prostatution should be legal, but thats a different story and argument, as long as they "workers" are working on there own free will. 

Black market cigs...honestly I don't really know what you mean by that. Homemade maybe? 



> As for personal opinions on the matter...everyone is entitled to there opinion of course, which is why I belive the pot issues should be hadled at state level, and not federal. If you don't like your states laws..its a whole lot easier to change laws at the state level than it is at the federal one, and the states will be able to change the laws as the people see fit. This in turn frees up our federal government to work on REAL issues like the Economy, Health Care, and Forgien Affairs.


 


Bill Mattocks said:


> I tend to agree with you on this issue, believe it or not.


 
Awesome






Bill Mattocks said:


> Those who make this argument are seldom willing to agree that heroin should be legalized, and yet it is the same logic. So unless you think that everyone should be free to smoke crack and drop acid and snort coke and shoot heroin, that is also invalid logic.


 
My logic is VERY valid..because I don't belive in making ANY drugs illegal. Would I do them, no, do I think that people should get help for addictions, yes. But do I think that every person is responsible for themselves, of course I do. You just shouldn't be able to come whining to big brothe when your broke and sick from abusing your body. Per the constitution, as long as the user isn't hurting anyone, but themselves...they have the right to do as they wish, all other crimes would be handled seperately as they are seperate. Drugs don't commit crimes, people do.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree with you about state's rights. I agree with you that everyone has a right to their opinion. I disagree with you about your flat statement that pot is harmless - you don't know that and can't prove it, and the rest of your logic is invalid for reasons mentioned. In the end, you have an opinion unsupported by facts; as do I.


 
My girlfriends mother is a Cancer research scientist. She tells me that pot eases the symptoms of someone dying of cancer. Among other Illnesses, such as Chrone's desise, Arthritis, Irritable Bowel syndrom, Anxity, and depression. Pot is a fantastic substance for those people, and thats just the tip of the Iceburg.

I will agree with you that there needs to be more research done on the subject. Of course if thats what you meant about opinions unsupported with facts. More research is always good, because it really won't hurt anyone...besides of course, the generation that belives in refer madness..lol...they might be a bit freaked out, because I can almost garentee you, the more research we do, the more were going to find out that Mary-J really isn't that bad after all.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2011)

Not making an argument for or against here, but I am against it because as I said I am not a big Bob Marley fan and I don't like Hostess Twinkies, but the following statement is a bit silly 



Sensei Payne said:


> If it doesn't hurt anyone, besides the user, knowingly using the substance, then why not make it legal.


 
Not sure where you live or what your state laws are but there is a little thing called Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI) in my state which people can get arrested for if they have been smoking Marijuana and if they are being the wheel of a car they can potentially hurt a whole lot of people, much the same as a person who has an alcoholic beverage (which I realize is legal) can hurt and kill people while Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). Now I ma guessing, and this is only a guess, If you legalize Marijuana the charge would change from a DWAI to a DWI. 

Now let&#8217;s talk Cigarettes. Second hand smoke has been proven to be rather bad for anyone nearby that happens to inhale it and doubly so for children. And I doubt second hand smoke from Marijuana is much safer.

So you are correct that it doesn't hurt anyone, besides the user, knowingly using the substance just as long as the user stays in a room away from everyone and does not drive or attempt to operate any sort of machinery.

Legal or not it has the same potential to hurt others who want absolutely nothing to do with it just like alcohol and cigarettes do right now

Basically basing part of your justification for legalization on the statement &#8220;it doesn't hurt anyone, besides the user, knowingly using the substance&#8221; when it most certainly can hurt others, and has in my state, just the same as alcohol and Cigarettes can and do is at best flawed


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> .


 
As to that cartoon 

_Alcohol = Violence, Rape, Stupidity = Harmless and Legal_
_Weed = relaxed, excessive laughing, hunger = dangerous and Illegal_

it is flat out wrong in one area and missing a few bits in another

And I do not think anyone is trying to say alcohol is harmless

So to the cartoon let me fix that for you

_Alcohol = Violence, Rape, Stupidity = Dangerous and Legal_
_Weed = relaxed, excessive laughing, hunger, stupidity = Dangerous and Illegal_

Folks I do not want to drive on a road or train in an MA school with anyone who is drunk anymore than I want to drive on a road or train in an MA studio with anyone who is high. They are both potentially dangerous situation. I don&#8217;t want to sit in a room with a Cigarette smoke and breath second hand smoke anymore than I want to sit in a room with some one who is smoking &#8220;weed&#8221; and breath their second hand smoke, either way it just is not good for you


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 24, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> If it doesn't hurt anyone, besides the user, knowingly using the substance, then why not make it legal. Its there body they can do what they want with it. Any other crime commited while on the substance, is completely seperate.



I'm sorry, that's your opinion that it doesn't hurt anyone.

 And again, if the logic is valid, then the same can be said for heroin and meth and so on.  The people who make this argument never want to answer that question.



> Child molesters actually hurt people, a majority of pot smokers, do not.



Again, your opinion.  And we also put people in prison who do not 'hurt people' such as white collar criminals, those who traffic in other controlled substances such as heroin, and so on.  The logic is not valid.  Just because a person doesn't 'hurt anyone' is not a logical reason the substance they use should be legal.



> Sex trafficking is illegal because it hurts people. Personally I think prostatution should be legal, but thats a different story and argument, as long as they "workers" are working on there own free will.



You discount the damage done to the fabric of society as if society could withstand every assault on it.  If this were the case, it should be perfectly legal to copulate in the streets.  It hurts no one, it's their own free will, etc, etc.  There are many things which are illegal and we want them to remain that way, even though they 'hurt no one'.  I'm sorry, it is not a logical reason.



> Black market cigs...honestly I don't really know what you mean by that. Homemade maybe?



Sorry, not everyone has a law-enforcement background.  Yes, black market cigarettes, but not homemade.  When a pack of smokes costs $4 in NC and $11 in NYC, there is a thriving market for them and people transport them by the truckloads from one place to another.  My point is that if the economic profit motive is a logical reason to legalize pot, then so is the government getting involved in cigarette smuggling between states.  They could make a bundle.



> My logic is VERY valid..because I don't belive in making ANY drugs illegal. Would I do them, no, do I think that people should get help for addictions, yes. But do I think that every person is responsible for themselves, of course I do. You just shouldn't be able to come whining to big brothe when your broke and sick from abusing your body. Per the constitution, as long as the user isn't hurting anyone, but themselves...they have the right to do as they wish, all other crimes would be handled seperately as they are seperate. Drugs don't commit crimes, people do.



We disagree.  And most people who are for the legalization of pot are not for the legalization of 'harder' drugs as you are.  The Libertarian Party itself, which is the strongest proponent of legalizing all drugs, is a scan few percentage of the entire population.  You're in the distinct minority.



> My girlfriends mother is a Cancer research scientist. She tells me that pot eases the symptoms of someone dying of cancer. Among other Illnesses, such as Chrone's desise, Arthritis, Irritable Bowel syndrom, Anxity, and depression. Pot is a fantastic substance for those people, and thats just the tip of the Iceburg.



I'm sure it is.  So is Morphine.  Can you buy morphine legally on the street without a prescription?  I have no problems with actual medical marijuana.  I do have problems with so-called 'medical' marijuana which is just a ruse to cover recreational use, as it is in California.  



> I will agree with you that there needs to be more research done on the subject. Of course if thats what you meant about opinions unsupported with facts. More research is always good, because it really won't hurt anyone...besides of course, the generation that belives in refer madness..lol...they might be a bit freaked out, because I can almost garentee you, the more research we do, the more were going to find out that Mary-J really isn't that bad after all.



I don't care if pot is a 'bad thing' or not.  Research is great - I'm sure there are many medical uses for pot, and low-THC hemp should be raised as a cash crop like cotton.   Beyond that, I want it to remain illegal for recreational use.


----------



## Steve (Jun 24, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> There could be new members with new input this time around so its always good to get several sides of the issues as time goes on...with any topic, it evolves and changes with time.
> 
> As for Pot being legal...yeah it really should be. I have never heard of a pot head being violent...pot mixed with other drugs, perhaps, but not just pot.
> 
> ...


Then let me just recommend that everyone who has not already done so, read the three previous threads.  There's a lot of background, and frankly, I'm not going to rewrite everything I took the time to contribute before.  My position hasn't changed.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 24, 2011)

It's amazing how so many of the proponents of so called medical marijuana and/or wholesale legalization are the same pot head dip ***** we all knew in high school...


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> If it doesn't hurt anyone, besides the user, knowingly using the substance, then why not make it legal. Its there body they can do what they want with it. Any other crime commited while on the substance, is completely seperate.


 
This is what I said in my first post.  If its made legal, then it should be treated the same as alcohol.  In other words, if you're so under the influence that your driving is seriously impared, then your *** gets locked up.  





> My logic is VERY valid..because I don't belive in making ANY drugs illegal. Would I do them, no, do I think that people should get help for addictions, yes. But do I think that every person is responsible for themselves, of course I do. You just shouldn't be able to come whining to big brothe when your broke and sick from abusing your body. Per the constitution, as long as the user isn't hurting anyone, but themselves...they have the right to do as they wish, all other crimes would be handled seperately as they are seperate. Drugs don't commit crimes, people do.


 
Well, you hit the nail on the head when you talked about responsibility.  See, thats the problem....if I had to wager a guess, I'd say there will probably be more irresponsible people, than resonsible.  Why?  Because people can't seem to control intake.  

Something else thats interesting....I havent heard of any criminal cases, in which an alcoholic robs people so he can buy a bottle, yet we here about lots of crimes in which people rob and steal so they can get their next fix.  

Like I said, I dont do drugs...never have, never will.  If the powers to be, decide to make it legal, then those powers need to be ready to accept the end results.


----------



## Steve (Jun 24, 2011)

Big Don said:


> It's amazing how so many of the proponents of so called medical marijuana and/or wholesale legalization are the same pot head dip ***** we all knew in high school...


Are they?  Sounds like you're talking out your *** to me.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 24, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Now I'm an independent conservative (or 'liberal' if you ask Twin Fist).


 

Let's be fait. According to TF, Genghis Khan was a liberal. :lfao:


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 24, 2011)

Hemp should be legal, it means we can make high grade paper without cutting down trees, and farmers get another cash crop to bring to market.

Marijuana should be decriminalized then strongly regulated and controlled. You dont see many people growing their own tobacco or having stills set up in the backyard, because they can get what they need/want for a reasonable price. It just isnt worth the hassle or the work.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 24, 2011)

People keep comparing weed to alcohol. There are 2 major differences.

Injesting alcohol does not have a spill over effect on other people in the room. Smoke does.

There are road side tests for alcohol available to LEO, none for weed.


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> People keep comparing weed to alcohol. There are 2 major differences.
> 
> Injesting alcohol does not have a spill over effect on other people in the room. Smoke does.


 
Yes, that is true.  Since I was one that was making the reference....my point was simply, that indirectly, it will have an effect on others.  Just because I wont get drunk simply be sitting next to someone who's drinking, vs. sitting next to someone smoking, ie: 2nd hand smoke, doesnt mean that either alcohol or weed is better/worse than the other.



> There are road side tests for alcohol available to LEO, none for weed.


 
Since I dont smoke or drink, let me ask you this....if someone were to spend 2hrs smoking weed, and then get behind the wheel, and get pulled over, would the officer, if they performed a field test, similar to one to determine whether or not someone is drunk, be able to tell whether or not someone was capable of driving?


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 24, 2011)

People are smoking pot anyways... 

how do they test and see if people having been smoking now?

How many times do you hear on the news that Pot was involved with that high speed chase last night?

How many times do you hear. "Two men kill each other in a fist fight, Marijuana was involved."

NEVER!

Its always booze.


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> People are smoking pot anyways...
> 
> how do they test and see if people having been smoking now?
> 
> ...


 
http://www.sandiegopersonalinjurybl...r-influence-of-marijuana-causes-13-accidents/

http://www.californiaduiinjurylawye...luence-of-marijuana-in-highway-299-crash.html

http://seriousaccidents.com/blog/dr...ana-driver-allegedly-caused-13-car-accidents/

http://www.pennsylvaniapersonalinjuryblog.com/2010/12/fatal_tractortrailer_accident.html

Amazing what a simple google search turns up.   As for the fighting....there are always turf wars over drugs.  As for how they test....dont know, thats why I'm asking.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 24, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> People are smoking pot anyways...


 by that "logic" we should legalize rape and murder.





> how do they test and see if people having been smoking now?
> 
> How many times do you hear on the news that Pot was involved with that high speed chase last night?
> 
> ...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 24, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sez you.
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the same argument for child pornography (except for the junk food part).  That make it OK, then?


Having just started reading on this thread (it takes me a while) I would like to point out that it would be wrong to place marijuana use and child porn in the same group of criminal activity. Other than the fact that they are both crimes, we could just as well compare child sex abuse to jay walking.
Sean


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 24, 2011)

MJS said:


> Yes, that is true. Since I was one that was making the reference....my point was simply, that indirectly, it will have an effect on others. Just because I wont get drunk simply be sitting next to someone who's drinking, vs. sitting next to someone smoking, ie: 2nd hand smoke, doesnt mean that either alcohol or weed is better/worse than the other.


It's not a question of better or worse, but if someone next to me gets drunk, and tomorrow morning at work I have to pee in a cup, I won't show any alcohol consuption.




> Since I dont smoke or drink, let me ask you this....if someone were to spend 2hrs smoking weed, and then get behind the wheel, and get pulled over, would the officer, if they performed a field test, similar to one to determine whether or not someone is drunk, be able to tell whether or not someone was capable of driving?


 
I would guess they would fail a sobrierity test, but could not be quantified. There is no equivalent to a breathalizer for weed.


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> It's not a question of better or worse, but if someone next to me gets drunk, and tomorrow morning at work I have to pee in a cup, I won't show any alcohol consuption.


 
True.  I was simply responding to the posts in which it was implied that one was less dangerous than the other.  Just because one doesnt have any 2nd hand effects, fact is, both can have serious results, proof of which I linked in another post. 






> I would guess they would fail a sobrierity test, but could not be quantified. There is no equivalent to a breathalizer for weed.


 
So marijuana use will have the same effects on a person that drank, as far as the test goes?  BTW, I wasn't talking about a breath test, I was talking about the other things such as....following a pen with your eyes only, and not moving your head, ability to walk a straight line, stand on one foot, tilt your head back and touch a finger to your nose, ability to recite the alphabet, etc.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 24, 2011)

Isn&#8217;t impaired driving, impaired driving? It doesn&#8217;t necessarily specify what the cause of the impairment is. Prescription medication, lack of sleep, talking in the phone or eating a burger, if they impair your ability to drive a motor vehicle, you are impaired.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Isnt impaired driving, impaired driving? It doesnt necessarily specify what the cause of the impairment is. Prescription medication, lack of sleep, talking in the phone or eating a burger, if they impair your ability to drive a motor vehicle, you are impaired.


 
Yup, in NYS it is a DWAI


----------



## Carol (Jun 24, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Isnt impaired driving, impaired driving? It doesnt necessarily specify what the cause of the impairment is. Prescription medication, lack of sleep, talking in the phone or eating a burger, if they impair your ability to drive a motor vehicle, you are impaired.



There's a slight difference.  Operating Under the Influence typically refers to operating a vehicle under the influence of a substance.  Could be alcohol, could be drugs, could be cold medicine, could be legally presribed Rx drugs.  

Non-substance issues -- cell phones, eating a burger, attending to children, etc -- these fall under distracted driving or something like that.  Definition will vary from state to state.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 24, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> How many times do you hear. "Two men kill each other in a fist fight, Marijuana was involved."




Maybe they were they fighting over Cheetos?


----------



## Carol (Jun 24, 2011)

sensei payne said:
			
		

> How many times do you hear. "Two men kill each other in a fist fight, Marijuana was involved."



Today, actually.  Well, only one man was killed, and it wasn't a fist fight.  He was shot over 3 pounds of marijuana.   Perp was sentenced to 20.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110624/news/706249857/

June 23, 2011 -- Brea, CA 
Armed Robbery of medical marijuana
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8209722

June 21, 2011 -- Santa Rosa, CA
Armed Robbery of medical marijuana
http://www.ktvu.com/news/28316070/detail.html

June 16, 2011 -- North Portland, OR
Man arrested in connection with stabbing, marijuana robbing
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/06/man_arrested_in_connection_wit.html


----------



## granfire (Jun 24, 2011)

Carol said:


> Today, actually.  Well, only one man was killed, and it wasn't a fist fight.  He was shot over 3 pounds of marijuana.   Perp was sentenced to 20.
> 
> http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110624/news/706249857/
> 
> ...




well, pharmacies are being robbed for painkillers...


----------



## granfire (Jun 25, 2011)

granfire said:


> well, pharmacies are being robbed for painkillers...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43536286/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001


----------



## MJS (Jun 25, 2011)

granfire said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43536286/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001


 
Something tells me that even if this stuff were legal, we'd still see things like this link.


----------



## granfire (Jun 25, 2011)

MJS said:


> Something tells me that even if this stuff were legal, we'd still see things like this link.



then again, maybe not...pot is cheap, not worth the risk.
heck, I bet it grows nearly wild in most of the US by now...


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 27, 2011)

Carol said:


> Today, actually. Well, only one man was killed, and it wasn't a fist fight. He was shot over 3 pounds of marijuana. Perp was sentenced to 20.
> 
> http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110624/news/706249857/
> 
> ...


 

Yeah but that wasn't over Pot, that was really over money...the pot was merely the product...

If it were legalized then this never would have happened.  Remove the street value, and the violence will go down or away all together.


----------



## Steve (Jun 27, 2011)

This is absolutely true, SP.  However, while we can see the correlation with prohibition against alcohol in the early 20th century, reasonable arguments aren't going to change a person's opinion when that opinion is based on emotion.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> This is absolutely true, SP. However, while we can see the correlation with prohibition against alcohol in the early 20th century, reasonable arguments aren't going to change a person's opinion when that opinion is based on emotion.


 
Its a plant...it grows in the ground.

Big Pharm I would think would be the ones that would hurt the most. Loosing out on all those addicts to pain killers.


----------



## Steve (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Its a plant...it grows in the ground.
> 
> Big Pharm I would think would be the ones that would hurt the most. Loosing out on all those addicts to pain killers.


Preaching to the choir!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Its a plant...it grows in the ground.
> 
> Big Pharm I would think would be the ones that would hurt the most. Loosing out on all those addicts to pain killers.


Tobacco and Cotton were the main lobbyists that got it banned in the first place. Pharm just helps keep it and anything natural blocked best they can.
Lets em keep marking up 5c of powder hundreds of dollars.


----------



## MJS (Jun 28, 2011)

I think I may've said this in another post, but....

whats interesting, is that you see lots of violence due to drugs, yet you rarely see any violence over someone trying to get alcohol.  Would legalizing weed, cut down on drug violence?  Something tells me it wouldn't, but I guess if it was made legal, only time would tell.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 28, 2011)

MJS said:


> I think I may've said this in another post, but....
> 
> whats interesting, is that you see lots of violence due to drugs, yet you rarely see any violence over someone trying to get alcohol. Would legalizing weed, cut down on drug violence? Something tells me it wouldn't, but I guess if it was made legal, only time would tell.


 
Not trying to get alcohol maybe but afterwards things get different: Bar fights, Domestic Violence, Automobile Accidents. Etc.

A guy I meant in a security training seminar was a ex-Army Ranger, and at that time a bouncer, said there are 2 things that just do not mix...humans and alcohol and he was a firm believer in if you want an idiot, take one human and just add alcohol.

I am not so sure it would be any different if Marijuana was legalized, there would still be associated violence of one sort or another


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

MJS said:


> I think I may've said this in another post, but....
> 
> whats interesting, is that you see lots of violence due to drugs, yet you rarely see any violence over someone trying to get alcohol. Would legalizing weed, cut down on drug violence? Something tells me it wouldn't, but I guess if it was made legal, only time would tell.


 

Maybe we won't see the violence decrease right away..but over time, it will become just like alcohol.  If you want it, go buy it.

I am taking massage therapy classes, and two of the women in there work at substance rehabilitation center.

They see people coming off crack, meth, alcohol, and several other things...sometimes legal things...but they never see someone detoxing from weed.


----------



## MJS (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Maybe we won't see the violence decrease right away..but over time, it will become just like alcohol. If you want it, go buy it.
> 
> I am taking massage therapy classes, and two of the women in there work at substance rehabilitation center.
> 
> They see people coming off crack, meth, alcohol, and several other things...sometimes legal things...but they never see someone detoxing from weed.


 
OTOH, alcohol could be considered a 'drug' so to speak, yet as I said, we dont see people mugging others on the street to get cash to buy beer, we see them doing it to buy drugs.  So, yeah, its very possible that the violence would decrease.

Of course, if it were to become legal, that would probably put the medical marijuana centers out of business.  What I mean is, if its legal, and you could buy it at a store, just like you could buy beer, there'd be no need to have a special weed depot. LOL.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

MJS said:


> OTOH, alcohol could be considered a 'drug' so to speak, yet as I said, we dont see people mugging others on the street to get cash to buy beer, we see them doing it to buy drugs. So, yeah, its very possible that the violence would decrease.


 

I have known Heavy Alcohol users steal from family and such just so they can get there next drink..but that kind of addiction can be found anywhere..and dare I say...even in the martial arts community.  People get addicted to the pain, and/or exercise...just like people get addicted to Tattoos, video games, adrenaline, etc.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> I ..but that kind of addiction can be found anywhere..and dare I say...even in the martial arts community. People get addicted to the pain, and/or exercise...just like people get addicted to Tattoos, video games, adrenaline, etc.


 
I'm addicted to bison and air......:lol:


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I'm addicted to bison and air......:lol:


 

Point was that some people have addictive personalities, thats just how they are...no matter what the vice, they will find a way to abuse it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Maybe we won't see the violence decrease right away..but over time, it will become just like alcohol. If you want it, go buy it.
> 
> I am taking massage therapy classes, and two of the women in there work at substance rehabilitation center.
> 
> They see people coming off crack, meth, alcohol, and several other things...sometimes legal things...but they never see someone detoxing from weed.


 
I use to be security in a Hospital that had a detox unit and I never saw anyone being brought in to detox from Marijuana either... but I did see a guy come in via ambulance from a car accident, he was the driver, and he was reeking of marijuana and had a bag of marijuana in his pocket apparently he veered over the median and hit another car.

Same thing happens with Alcohol too legalize it and just get more of the same.

It is kind of like Mac vs PC as it applies to viruses and malware. It is not because Mac is any better or worse it is because it is not as popular at the enterprise level so it is not targeted. 

Legalize Marijuana and you will get all sorts of problems you never dreamed of as well as an increase in others previously known.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Legalize Marijuana and you will get all sorts of problems you never dreamed of as well as an increase in others previously known.


 
But in the long run things will work out for the better...They said the same thing about the boose when it first became legal again.

I think we all should go and watch boardwalk empire..The Mobs got rich from prohibition...Do you think they're not getting rich from Marijuana not getting legalized?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> But in the long run things will work out for the better...They said the same thing about the boose when it first became legal again.
> 
> I think we all should go and watch boardwalk empire..The Mobs got rich from prohibition...Do you think they're not getting rich from Marijuana not getting legalized?


 
 whose talking about mob and prohabition... not me :idunno: You may want to reread the Mac vs PC bit of my post and try and understand the comparison. 

I'm talking what happens every day like the 37,261 Alcohol related deaths from auto accidents in 2008. And the guy I was referring to was not mob either. He was a guy who decided to smoke some marijuana and go for a drive or possibly smoke while driving and he went across the road and hit another car. He was not pushed by anyone form a mob

What will sort itself out is that the problems you do not see related to marijuana right now you will begin to see if it is legalized, no mob needed

You seem to think legalize and everything will be just fine nothing but happy times from there on out. Wrong.... there will be other issues that come with that... nothing...absolutly nothing operated in a vacuum on Planet earth


Yup alcohol is legal but there are stilll a whole lot of deaths associated with that as well as a whole lot of violence. Legalize Marijuana and yuo get more of the same

*EDIT*

*Correction* 13,846 Alcohol related deaths from auto accidents in 2008. I made a mistake and wrote down the total which was  37,261 
​


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> whose talking about mob and prohabition... not me :idunno: You may want to reread the Mac vs PC bit of my post and try and understand the comparison.
> 
> I'm talking what happens every day like the 37,261 Alcohol related deaths from auto accidents in 2008. And the guy I was referring to was not mob either. He was a guy who decided to smoke some marijuana and go for a drive or possibly smoke while driving and he went across the road and hit another car. He was not pushed by anyone form a mob
> 
> ...



driving under the influence, does not matter what it is you are doped up on, drunk as a skunk or high as a kite.

however, without prohibition I doubt the mob would have become what it is.
On the same token (mob is involved in drug distribution, or just gangs, same difference, organized crime) you make the 'drug' easier and cheaper to acquire legally, the criminal organizations will see their cash flow dry up on it.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 28, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I'm addicted to bison and air......:lol:



I'm a rageaholic, I'm addicted to rageahole.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 28, 2011)

granfire said:


> driving under the influence, does not matter what it is you are doped up on, drunk as a skunk or high as a kite.
> 
> however, without prohibition I doubt the mob would have become what it is.
> On the same token (mob is involved in drug distribution, or just gangs, same difference, organized crime) you make the 'drug' easier and cheaper to acquire legally, the criminal organizations will see their cash flow dry up on it.


 
That is true but I am not talking about the mob or prohibition I am talking about a likely result from the legalization of Marijuana since the legalization of Alcohol has been thrown around as a justification. 

But lets talk organized crime

Legalize it and organized crime may or may not....more likely may not get out of it. For the record one of the big money makers for the mob right now is selling cigarettes.... do you think legalized marijuana would be any different


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> But lets talk organized crime
> 
> Legalize it and organized crime may or may not....more likely may not get out of it. For the record one of the big money makers for the mob right now is selling cigarettes.... do you think legalized marijuana would be any different


 

They will move onto something else...as they always do. Why not take away one of there biggest cash crops.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 28, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> But lets talk organized crime
> 
> Legalize it and organized crime may or may not....more likely may not get out of it. For the record one of the big money makers for the mob right now is selling cigarettes.... do you think legalized marijuana would be any different


 
An excellent point, but it would depend on the taxes and costs imposed on the legalized weed compared to what the criminal element's offering.  Right now, dealers are the only source of weed unless you grow your own.  

If you decide you want to buy some weed once it's legal, are you going to get the, say, $10/pack from the local grocer (for argument's sake) where you know the content and know where the money's going, or will you buy it from your local street dealer at $2/pack where you don't know what's in it or where the money's going (or if there's a cop waiting nearby).  Most sane people would opt the first, but that changes if the legal source is suddenly charging $25/pack.  

Either way, legalizing weed will substantially curtail, if not eliminate, the criminal market.  There maybe circumstances in which a black market would survive, but it would be nothing like what it is currently, where the drug dealers are the only source.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> They will move onto something else...as they always do. Why not take away one of there biggest cash crops.


 
Did you even bother to notice the bit about cigarettes? Or was it just convenient to your argument to ignore it?

As they always do they will move on to where they can make money and my post to you was not about organized crime it was about other issues and I am beginning to think all you got is the organized crime angle and it is just not working. My post to you was about the side effects of legalization and ignoring that to make your case is not working. 

Organized crime makes scads of money off of legal cigarettes and I would not be surprised if they were not making money off of legal alcohol too what makes you think legalized marijuana will be any different. Legalize marijuana and they will find another way to exploit it.

Get a new spiel because the angle of organized crime getting out of it does not work and that has been proven with cigarettes and likely alcohol too.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Did you even bother to notice the bit about cigarettes? Or was it just convenient to your argument to ignore it?


 

Smoking is almost a non issue..fewer and fewer people smoker cigarettes everyday...as where pot users are going up.

Its just a matter of time taht the cigs become a relic...hence the ignore.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 28, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> An excellent point, but it would depend on the taxes and costs imposed on the legalized weed compared to what the criminal element's offering. Right now, dealers are the only source of weed unless you grow your own.
> 
> If you decide you want to buy some weed once it's legal, are you going to get the, say, $10/pack from the local grocer (for argument's sake) where you know the content and know where the money's going, or will you buy it from your local street dealer at $2/pack where you don't know what's in it or where the money's going (or if there's a cop waiting nearby). Most sane people would opt the first, but that changes if the legal source is suddenly charging $25/pack.
> 
> Either way, legalizing weed will substantially curtail, if not eliminate, the criminal market. There maybe circumstances in which a black market would survive, but it would be nothing like what it is currently, where the drug dealers are the only source.


 
Chances are it would be taxed similar to a cigarette which leaves a great profit opportunity for organized crime. 

But you are correct the current street dealer, technically the little guy in this scenario, will be out of business. 

My issue is that legalizing it does not make all the problems go away, see alcohol related deaths and health issues related to alcohol and cigarettes and that crime will not be gone it will simply change so I am not so sure that it will substantially reduce the criminal market since selling cigarettes from another state out of the back of a semi is still criminal


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Smoking is almost a non issue..fewer and fewer people smoker cigarettes everyday...as where pot users are going up.
> 
> Its just a matter of time taht the cigs become a relic...hence the ignore.


 
Hence legal marijuana cigarettes could fill the void... once again organized crime has a built in market

But the fact is cigarettes are an issue

You say cigarettes are a non-issue.... do you have any idea how many smoke in the USA alone

24.8 million Men and 21.1 million women. So 23.1 percent of all males in the USA and 18.3 percent of all females in the USA smoke and that is a non-issue. 

Actually is an inconvenient issue to your argument for legalization

You want legalization and want to argue for it that is fine but you need to base that argument on facts and you are simply basing it on speculation and assumption and the world as you see it based on your short time and limited expereince due to your age or lack thereof


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Chances are it would be taxed similar to a cigarette which leaves a great profit opportunity for organized crime.
> 
> But you are correct the current street dealer, technically the little guy in this scenario, will be out of business.
> 
> My issue is that legalizing it does not make all the problems go away, see alcohol related deaths and health issues related to alcohol and cigarettes and that crime will not be gone it will simply change so I am not so sure that it will substantially reduce the criminal market since selling cigarettes from another state out of the back of a semi is still criminal


 

You would be suprised the lengths people would go through to make sure they are legal about what they are doing.  I know I would pay the extra few bucks to be legal.

Like here in Kentucky...a lot people go to IN to get Fireworks..because mortors are illegal for people to privately have...but a lot of people do it anyways, they just stay with family up in IN and set them off there...perfectly legal with the same amount of danger.

If it was legal in Kentucky people would just by the fireworks here instead of putting there money in another states economy....

don't get me wrong, a number of people take the fireworks home..they buy a few "Illegal" fireworks, in IN, and then finish there shopping in IN...so yeah don't mis understand...just saying that the state would make more money and people would be glad to do it..if it was closer to home.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> You would be suprised the lengths people would go through to make sure they are legal about what they are doing. I know I would pay the extra few bucks to be legal.
> 
> Like here in Kentucky...a lot people go to IN to get Fireworks..because mortors are illegal for people to privately have...but a lot of people do it anyways, they just stay with family up in IN and set them off there...perfectly legal with the same amount of danger.
> 
> ...


 
Fireworks are illegal here too but you know what.. One year in Chinatown the Chinese gangs that usually control the sale of fireworks in Chinatown sold a whole lot of fireworks to others and allowed them to sell in Chinatown...which was highly irregular. These very same gangs then called the police and reported every single person that was selling in Chinatown. They got their money with no legal issues what-so-ever and now that the police were confident they got all the fireworks they happily went back to the station and the Chinese gangs once again opened up shop and made more money that ever since most of the competition had been arrested.

But if I go back to my original line using legal fireworks.

Are people injured using illegal fireworks?
Now make them legal are they magically safe?

Actually legalize them more use them and there are potentially more injuries

And I see you seem to have either ignored or abandon the cigarette bits and now changed to a somewhat unrelated issue of fireworks.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> And I see you seem to have either ignored or abandon the cigarette bits and now changed to a somewhat unrelated issue of fireworks.


 

Again, I feel that the cigarettes are a non issue being that they are declining in popularity...the mobs/black market isn't making a killing off of them like they do pot..they just don't.

and the fireworks was just an attempt at an analogy...people are going to get hurt either way you look at it...as someone said before...You can't legislate stupid.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Again, I feel that the cigarettes are a non issue being that they are declining in popularity...the mobs/black market isn't making a killing off of them like they do pot..they just don't.
> 
> and the fireworks was just an attempt at an analogy...people are going to get hurt either way you look at it...as someone said before...You can't legislate stupid.


 
It is not a non-issue, it is an inconvenient one based on what I have read in this thread, cigarettes are still pretty high up on the cause of death charts as far as health is concerned and they are still around and not going out of business anytime soon. You can ignore it, call it a non-issue but it is parallel to the whole legalize Marijuana point of view. Assuming that cigarettes go away then marijuana drops right in (if legalized) to fill the void for organized crime. Crime does not go away, it gets displaced and or changes to fit the times.... just ask any criminologist

But then you know what, you are young and I was all for legalization when I was young and now I am old and just don&#8217;t see it as something I wasn&#8217;t or something that will happen anytime soon. The whole lets legalize marijuana thing to me is just this side of tilting at windmills and you are never going to convince me otherwise and I will never be able to convince you either... but you know what&#8230; wait about 20 or 30 years and I am betting that time and experience will change your mind 

This entire post is growing tiresome... now is the time on Sprokets when we dance

I&#8217;m out

Have fun storming the castle&#8230;.


----------



## Steve (Jun 28, 2011)

MJS said:


> I think I may've said this in another post, but....
> 
> whats interesting, is that you see lots of violence due to drugs, yet you rarely see any violence over someone trying to get alcohol.  Would legalizing weed, cut down on drug violence?  Something tells me it wouldn't, but I guess if it was made legal, only time would tell.


MJS, are you seriously suggesting that there is no direct correlation between alcohol and violence?   

If weed were legalized, it would certainly cut down on violence associated with the illegal trade.  Legalization of weed wouldn't change violence related to consumption of weed.  However, the violence would have to be pretty severe to come close to the violence and avoidable deaths we see directly resulting from the consumption of alcohol every day.


----------



## MJS (Jun 28, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not trying to get alcohol maybe but afterwards things get different: Bar fights, Domestic Violence, Automobile Accidents. Etc.
> 
> A guy I meant in a security training seminar was a ex-Army Ranger, and at that time a bouncer, said there are 2 things that just do not mix...humans and alcohol and he was a firm believer in if you want an idiot, take one human and just add alcohol.
> 
> I am not so sure it would be any different if Marijuana was legalized, there would still be associated violence of one sort or another


 
Agreed!  That was kinda the point I was getting at, but wasn't as clear as you.   There're side effects to everything.  Earlier I said something about responsibility, and being able to control intake.  IMO, more people than not, can't control themselves, thus, the reason why I dont think that we'd see a decrease in drug related violence.


----------



## MJS (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> I have known Heavy Alcohol users steal from family and such just so they can get there next drink..but that kind of addiction can be found anywhere..and dare I say...even in the martial arts community. People get addicted to the pain, and/or exercise...just like people get addicted to Tattoos, video games, adrenaline, etc.


 
So, going on that, its safe to say, IMO anyways, that we probably wouldn't see a decrease in drug related crime.  Even if it was legal, like alcohol, we'd probably still see theft and/or violence, in order for people to get their fix.  Just a few days ago, in the city in which I work, some dirt bag heroin junkie, grabbed some cash from an elderly woman, as she left the store.  Now, I put part of the blame on her, for walking out with $70+ in her hand, but still, she didn't deserve to have some piece of **** do that to her.  On the plus side, a witness followed the piece of ****, and guided the cops right to him.


----------



## MJS (Jun 28, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> I use to be security in a Hospital that had a detox unit and I never saw anyone being brought in to detox from Marijuana either... but I did see a guy come in via ambulance from a car accident, he was the driver, and he was reeking of marijuana and had a bag of marijuana in his pocket apparently he veered over the median and hit another car.
> 
> Same thing happens with Alcohol too legalize it and just get more of the same.
> 
> ...


 
Funny you should mention the car accidents.   A few pages back, I posted a few links to crashes related to weed.  It all goes back to what I said about being responsible and exercising control and good solid judgement....something we dont see alot of.


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2011)

MJS said:


> So, going on that, its safe to say, IMO anyways, that we probably wouldn't see a decrease in drug related crime.  Even if it was legal, like alcohol, we'd probably still see theft and/or violence, in order for people to get their fix.  Just a few days ago, in the city in which I work, some dirt bag heroin junkie, grabbed some cash from an elderly woman, as she left the store.  Now, I put part of the blame on her, for walking out with $70+ in her hand, but still, she didn't deserve to have some piece of **** do that to her.  On the plus side, a witness followed the piece of ****, and guided the cops right to him.



Y'all are mixing the problems up again (well, it's not easy to keep them apart)

You are talking about a _heroin_ addict. by all accounts it's pretty bad when you come down, pot is said to not cause much of a physical dependency, comparatable to cigarets.

I don't think there is much in terms of criminal activity to buy pot...
However, growing the **** is big money still, because it's illegal. So the way from field to consumer is tricky and $$ costly. You take the illegal part of it out, it should become less troublesome. (just like the rum runners and boot leggers taken out of the equation eased up the criminal aspect in drinking.)

Naturally that does not cover driving while stoned...like it does not cover driving while drunk.


----------



## MJS (Jun 28, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> MJS, are you seriously suggesting that there is no direct correlation between alcohol and violence?
> 
> If weed were legalized, it would certainly cut down on violence associated with the illegal trade. Legalization of weed wouldn't change violence related to consumption of weed. However, the violence would have to be pretty severe to come close to the violence and avoidable deaths we see directly resulting from the consumption of alcohol every day.


 


Not at all Steve.  I think there may've been some confusion with my point I was trying to make.  Let me clarify.  Some here, were suggesting that if weed were legal, it'd cut down on violence.  I was saying it was interesting, because most of the people who we see doing street robberies, do it so they can get a quick fix.  You see people robbing others, to buy crack, heroin, etc, but rarely see them running to the liquor store to buy a beer.  

I said that time would ultimately tell us whether or not crime would decrease.  As for alcohol related violence...XS pointed that out in one of his posts, to which I agreed.  Alcohol is a huge factor in people being *******s, thus one of the main reasons I dont frequent bars.  

Again, you'll note that I also spoke of the inability for many, to control their intake


----------



## MJS (Jun 28, 2011)

granfire said:


> Y'all are mixing the problems up again (well, it's not easy to keep them apart)
> 
> You are talking about a _heroin_ addict. by all accounts it's pretty bad when you come down, pot is said to not cause much of a physical dependency, comparatable to cigarets.
> 
> ...


 
Well, like I said, time will tell.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 29, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> It is not a non-issue, it is an inconvenient one based on what I have read in this thread, cigarettes are still pretty high up on the cause of death charts as far as health is concerned and they are still around and not going out of business anytime soon. You can ignore it, call it a non-issue but it is parallel to the whole legalize Marijuana point of view. Assuming that cigarettes go away then marijuana drops right in (if legalized) to fill the void for organized crime. Crime does not go away, it gets displaced and or changes to fit the times.... just ask any criminologist
> 
> But then you know what, you are young and I was all for legalization when I was young and now I am old and just dont see it as something I wasnt or something that will happen anytime soon. The whole lets legalize marijuana thing to me is just this side of tilting at windmills and you are never going to convince me otherwise and I will never be able to convince you either... but you know what wait about 20 or 30 years and I am betting that time and experience will change your mind
> 
> ...


 
Its not just the young that want this plant legalized for sale...there are many on the Hill that want to see it legalized to.  Telling people what they can or can not do with there bodies is unconstitutional.  A reason why Roe V. Wade is still in effect.

Ciggerete smoking has declined in the last 10 years...those numbers you posted are still very large indeed..but they are still shrinking.  With all the ordinences about smoking in public places, its made smoking more inconvient now more than ever.  Smoking will be even more of a non issue by the time I am, your age.  

I gotta say that age discrimination on this issue doesn't progress your argument about keeping pot illegal at all...in fact, if it does anything it progesses mine.  My Generation wants it legalized.  We are the future.  So inevidably...it will happen.  Facts are that many people,  of all voting aged adults, want to see it legalized.

*The war on drugs has failed*


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 29, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> I gotta say that age discrimination on this issue doesn't progress your argument about keeping pot illegal at all...in fact, if it does anything it progesses mine. My Generation wants it legalized. We are the future. So inevidably...it will happen. Facts are that many people, of all voting aged adults, want to see it legalized.


 

Age discrimination has absolutly nothng to do with it and I do not think anything I said would constitute throwing that one out... it is simply the naivete of youth... been there... done that... bought the coffee cup and the t-shirt... kind of miss it actually... 

I'll let you in on a couple of secrets

Those guys on the hill.... don't care about you me or anyone else beyond the vote we supply when they need it.... oh and of course our $$$... so any thing they are doing has more to do with $$$ first and votes second

But here is the big one, this one is the important one..... my generation use to be the future too..... now we're the present... and all those kids at the first woodstock... they were the future too.... now they are becoming the past


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 29, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> But here is the big one, this one is the important one..... my generation* use to be* the future too..... now we're the *present*... and all those kids at the first woodstock... they *were* the future too.... now *they are becoming the past*


 
My point exactly.

Every Generation tries to do it just a little bit better than the last.

Politicians evenutally have no choice but to do what we want...sure...it takes them a really long time to come around to somethings...but eventually, the people win out...Why? Because we effect the pocket books of the companies that own them.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 29, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> My point exactly.
> 
> Every Generation tries to do it just a little bit better than the last.
> 
> Politicians evenutally have no choice but to do what we want...sure...it takes them a really long time to come around to somethings...but eventually, the people win out...Why? Because we effect the pocket books of the companies that own them.


 

Actually that is not my point at all... have things gotten better...nope

Are politicians getting better...nope

As time goes on...things get worse

People will only win when they stop looking at things along party lines and look at thing along the lines as what is best for the country and its people

If you want the future to be different you have to start much younger than you to make things better, you have to start in elementary school... for your generation as a whole it is already to late... your part of the machine already

We do not agree at all and our points appear to be opposite sides of the spectrum and I will again say...give it time... you will understand.

I shall waste no more time here

Have fun storming the castle


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 29, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually that is not my point at all... have things gotten better...nope
> 
> 
> People will only win when they stop looking at things along party lines and look at thing along the lines as what is best for the country and its people


 
At least this we can both agree...the two party system is broken, and according to our founding fathers, its not what they had imagined for us.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jun 30, 2011)

Wait. Pot is illegal?  When did that happen?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 30, 2011)

you missed it while you were on a taco bell run.....


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 30, 2011)

Well here's an argument that's probably good for the "against legalization"... 

http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28717

At first it's almost like watching a clip from Reefer Madness... then for whatever reason the guy paranoids OUT and literally goes through the window... he's damned lucky he wasn't any higher up off the ground. Also lucky didn't get sliced open by the glass. The girl... well she's just too blitzed to even take note of it at first. 

Obviously they've been smoking the whole day long because I've never seen anyone get so blitzed from just one bong hit (apiece)... no dope in the world is that powerful (unless of course it's spiked with something else). 

I find it amazing also that they're not afraid of legal reprisals for posting their usage on the net for all to see.


----------



## poollshark (Jul 1, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Well here's an argument that's probably good for the "against legalization"...
> 
> http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28717
> 
> ...



That is not a video of people smoking pot, read the header on the video 

*"Don't Ever Use Salvia.."*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum


----------



## granfire (Jul 1, 2011)

poollshark said:


> That is not a video of people smoking pot, read the header on the video
> 
> *"Don't Ever Use Salvia.."*
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum




Sage advice...

(yes, that's a pun)


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jul 1, 2011)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/08/national/main20070181.shtml

Congrats Conn.


Enjoy!


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 2, 2011)

Take an hour and watch this... to completion. Both sides of the coin. 

http://documentaryheaven.com/cannabis-the-evil-weed/


----------

