legalizing Pot

[Guest]

I see that Obama and his Attorney General are planning to stop federal programs that enforce and restrict pot smoking/usage. This really fits into a new American lifestyle. Allow the youth to legally "drug" themselves out of reality and not feel true feelings. Allow a gateway drug to be legalized so more can become even heavier drug users and more out of touch with reality. Adopt programs that will drive crime even higher.
I have nothing against the medical use of pot where it has been approved by a Doctor and will help a patient with pain. I had a niece who at the age of 28 developed a brain tumor and ultimately passed away. Pot was
one of the ways she was able to reduce pain and I believe that medical usage of this nature is justified.
But to generally legalize it or decrimialize it is outrages. Lets be conservative and guess that only 15-20% who use pot go on to heavier drugs, (e.g. it is generally accepted by the professionals that it is a gateway drug) that is an enormous number of heavy drug users and their demand for more increases as their systems become use to the level they are using..

[Guest]

I think you have your facts screwed up. They are discontinuing the raids on The Cannibus Clubs. Individual states will have to deal with the issue of legalizing Marijuana or not. These raids were costly and unnecessary. Even the Mayor of San Francisco is supporting marijuana for medicinal reasons only.

Get your facts straight. hmmmmm.... have you been watching Bill Maher lately? :shocked:

[Guest]

Attorney General Eric Holder stated this week that the Drug Enforcement Administration would end its raids on state-approved marijuana dispensaries.

Not the same as legalizing Marijuana for recreational use.

[Guest]

I think you have your facts screwed up. They are discontinuing the raids on The Cannibus Clubs. Individual states will have to deal with the issue of legalizing Marijuana or not. These raids were costly and unnecessary. Even the Mayor of San Francisco is supporting marijuana for medicinal reasons only.

Get your facts straight. hmmmmm.... have you been watching Bill Maher lately? :shocked:

Thanx for the clarification.

And if we are going to talk about gateway drugs, the two most common and pervasive "gateway drugs" are nicotine and alcohol by far. If we really want to address drug problems instead of using this as more of a political blame game lets start there.
More is spent on the treatment of alcohol addiction than that of any other drug, and likely more than all other drugs combined. Nicotine addiction accounts for enormous drains on our healthcare system. Tobacco subsidies from 1995-2006 totaled well over 500 million dollars, while private and government health care dollars are treating the multitude of complications (heart and vascular disease, lung disease, various cancers)associated with smoking and other tobacco abuse.
Seems we have a few gateway drugs to deal with that are not partisan or administration specific.

[Guest]

OK, they are stopping raids on the clubs which I think is consistent with my point that they are not going to enforce or control (federal basis) some pot usage (e.g. at the clubs which is a beginning). You can argue small points but the overall fact is that more usage will result from less enforcement's.
If your point is that is OK then so be it and you have a right to your opinion.
As far as getting facts straight lets agree that 2 Therapists with more than 50years of treating drug and alcohol additions will support that pot is a gateway drug and in fact in one case one said that a significant majority of heavy drugs users which were treated started with pot.
Is your mind clearer or more foggy when using drugs, is there a better picture of reality when using than not using, is there more or less crime when more drugs are used? And so on. I also understand that the federal government would turn the control/enforcement over to the states. Again, one less control over usage, (e.g. federal government stopping any single form of enforcement.)
I am not a fanatic on the subject but just believe it is not a plus to any society.

[Guest]

OK, they are stopping raids on the clubs which I think is consistent with my point that they are not going to enforce or control (federal basis) some pot usage (e.g. at the clubs which is a beginning). You can argue small points but the overall fact is that more usage will result from less enforcement's.
If your point is that is OK then so be it and you have a right to your opinion.
As far as getting facts straight lets agree that 2 Therapists with more than 50years of treating drug and alcohol additions will support that pot is a gateway drug and in fact in one case one said that a significant majority of heavy drugs users which were treated started with pot.
Is your mind clearer or more foggy when using drugs, is there a better picture of reality when using than not using, is there more or less crime when more drugs are used? And so on. I also understand that the federal government would turn the control/enforcement over to the states. Again, one less control over usage, (e.g. federal government stopping any single form of enforcement.)
I am not a fanatic on the subject but just believe it is not a plus to any society.

I am not sure its a plus to society either. I maintain though that if we are going to raise the specter then lets deal with the facts, and the facts are that alcohol and nicotine are by far the most common "gateway" drugs per the gateway theory. I think though that maybe its not as politically savy to address these. It begins to raise several questions about why alcohol and nicotine are ok and cannabis is not, and if the multi-millions we spend on marijuana is justified, especially if we continue to condone the more traditional drugs of alcohol and nicotine.
I am glad you pursued information from professionals. My experience with addictions on a personal and professional level, and contact with other professionals totaling probably hundreds of years of combined experiences drives my above comments.
I wish as a society we could get by without any mind altering substances, including all 3 mentioned above, but I doubt thats gonna happen.
If we are going to address it then lets do it, the politics have very little to do with it...fortunately or unfortunately depending on your view.

[Guest]

I don't understand why when marijuana is addressed and the terrible effects it has on society there is a need to try to change the subject to alcohol and nicotine? When was the last time you saw someone go to jail because they smoked a cigarette? Is it bad for you, sure.
Of course alcohol is a terrible drug and misued but does that justify using
marijuana. Is alcohol as much of a "gateway" drug as marijuana? I have not heard one professional in the field say that it is?
Back to the subject..It seems to be outrages to encourage any move to lessen the laws on using pot.

[Guest]

I personally think that the negative effects of alcohol and tobacco on society equal those of pot smoking. Many illnesses and deaths, and lives ruined. To think that tobacco would ever be outlawed is foolish, of course, with the power that the big tobacco lobbies wield. And prohibition didn't work either, as far as alcohol goes. And kids still smoke pot, too, for what its worth.

[Guest]

I don't understand why when marijuana is addressed and the terrible effects it has on society there is a need to try to change the subject to alcohol and nicotine? When was the last time you saw someone go to jail because they smoked a cigarette? Is it bad for you, sure.
Of course alcohol is a terrible drug and misued but does that justify using
marijuana. Is alcohol as much of a "gateway" drug as marijuana? I have not heard one professional in the field say that it is?
Back to the subject..It seems to be outrages to encourage any move to lessen the laws on using pot.

"Gateway Drugs" are a theory, both supported and refuted by different studies. Gateway drugs are those correlated with more or additional drug use after beginning them. If you are to claim marijuana is a gateway drug (and I happen to think it is to the same degree alcohol and nicotine are) at least recognize that other drugs/alcohol are with the same or greater preponderance.
The terrible effects marijuana has had on society? Historically they pale in comparrison to those of alcohol.
Alcohol is certainly at least as much of a "gateway drug" by all accounts (as is nicotine). Not sure what proffesionals failed to mention that to you.

And yes, back to the subject. Part of the deal here is about being accurate and not inflamatory. Kind of like saying Obama is trying to stop federal programs that enforce or limit pot smoking. Kind of like saying alcohol is not as much of a "gateway drug" as alcohol. If we are going to discuss and assign some political blame let's at least be accurate.

[Guest]

Didn't we learn anything from prohibition? Economic forces will soon decriminalize pot. California is broke and will turn to legal pot sales as a tax source. I believe Mass has already decided that the police will ignore possession of an ounce or less. Their court system can't deal with it and their jail system can't handle the cost. It's not healthy but neither is nicotine, one of the most addictive substances on the planet

[Guest]

Didn't we learn anything from prohibition? Economic forces will soon decriminalize pot. California is broke and will turn to legal pot sales as a tax source. I believe Mass has already decided that the police will ignore possession of an ounce or less. Their court system can't deal with it and their jail system can't handle the cost. It's not healthy but neither is nicotine, one of the most addictive substances on the planet

Sadly, I agree.

[Guest]

And the hundreds of thousands of innocent people maimed or killed by drunk drivers! :yuck:

[Guest]

with known statistics of incidence much higher than alcohol....however not talked about much because it is easy to fuss about something one may not participate in like alcohol or drugs....but nary a word about cell phones....because there are too many who do not want to loose theirs....hence no negative fussing....you certainly won't see a Mothers Against Cell Phone Murder.....because they all got one and don't wanna lose it.

Hypocracy....oh yeah!

BTK

[Guest]

I personally think that the negative effects of alcohol and tobacco on society equal those of pot smoking. Many illnesses and deaths, and lives ruined. To think that tobacco would ever be outlawed is foolish, of course, with the power that the big tobacco lobbies wield. And prohibition didn't work either, as far as alcohol goes. And kids still smoke pot, too, for what its worth.

Taj, I agree.

Surely we've learned something from Prohibition. Pot is widely used today, and drug kings are reaping the benefits. It's not going to go away. The government has been ignoring that reality for too long.

[Guest]

The gateway drug is Nicotine. The first thing a kid tries is a cigarette...and gets hooked pretty much automatically. Then he ventures into alcohol next...but doesn't really like the taste of beer...but needs to impress his friends...so he acts like he loves it and drinks too much. Next comes the pot. It makes you paranoid, so you are not real bent to drive a car and when you do...you drive more carefully than 90 percent of the drivers on the road...you are probably a safer driver if you are moderately stoned than straight. Now, if you are totally blitzed...you will not drive unless you are a complete moron or your Xbox is broken.

I would rather ride in a car or hang out with a pot smoker than a drinker. It is much safer and you will never get in a fight with everyone at the bar.

As far as alcohol and cigarette smokers go...they should not be allowed health coverage. They are the reason our medical system is so messed up in the first place. Look, if you want to poison yourself with cigarette smoke and destroy your liver with alcohol...don't expect me to pay for your medical coverage.

You grow out of smoking pot and quit shortly after college...but nicotine is like getting off of heroin. Most people cannot man up and quit smoking until their doctors scares them half to death with the results of their medical exam. Pot smokers for the most part...quit. They put away their toys and grow up. Smokers cling to their cancer sticks like it is life or death.

Why does the FDA allow nicotine if they are supposed to protect us?

The world would be a much better place if cigarettes and alcohol were illegal and we might actually be able to afford going to the doctor if smokers and drinkers had the door slammed in their faces until they got intelligent and cleaned up their acts. Reality can oft times be harsh. :beer3:

[Guest]

Pot smokers will argue ad infinitum how "wonderful" it is, how it's no different than the (new politically correct term) "gateway" drugs, and how nobody gets hurt.

Tobacco users use the same argument.

Alcohol absorbers claim the same, as long as "moderation" is maintained.

Stimulant users see no harm in the use of uppers.

The same holds true for those who use downers.

Cocaine snorters say there's no problem with "entertainment" use of this drug.

....and the list goes on and on.

The real problem is that no group wants to accept responsibility when others are indeed harmed by their "right to use" whatever they want to ingest.

Courtrooms are filled with folks use/abuse substances and cause auto accidents/assaults, beat someone half to death (or worse), or create some form of mayhem. In almost every circumstance, the "ingestor" claims no responsibility because "I didn't know what I was doing - I was drunk (or high)." The argument is always one of no responsibility due to lack of capacity (to think) because of the effect of the substance.

Personally, I don't care if you drink vodka, smoke old stogies, inhale torpedoes, snort lines or jab yourself silly. It's your body, and if you want to abuse it, as far as I'm concerned, that's your choice. BUT, if I'm expected to pay for your silliness, then I have rights. too - and that right includes the limiting of access or quantum of absorption, and holding you fully accountable for the harm you cause due to substance ingestion.

The key again is responsibility for action and results.. To me, there is NO EXCUSE for harm caused because a person took some sort of behavior-modification substance and the result is someone else got hurt or worse.

The excuse also that addiction itself escapes one from responsibility doesn't fly with me. This society is jammed with services to assist people from breaking (or radically mitigating) addictions of everything, and if you know you're an addict to any degree, you have a greater responsibility to protect others from your addiction-related actions.

Pot, tobacco, booze, crack, speed, and all the other stuff brings with it personal and public danger. Take all the risks you want, but be ready to pay for the results and don't say "it's not my fault, I'm hooked" or "it's not my fault, I didn't know what I was doing," or "it's not my fault, I couldn't control myself." or ""it's not my fault......" You owe that much to your neighbor.

So, promote whatever you want to be "legal," but be ready to stand up and take responsibility for what happens when the stuff is used and people get harmed because of it - directly or indirectly.

[Guest]

I believe Mass has already decided that the police will ignore possession of an ounce or less. Their court system can't deal with it and their jail system can't handle the cost.

Correct regarding Mass. It has been 3 months since the passage of the bill/law and I have not read one single incidence that would indicate that we (the voters) made a poor decision to basically decriminalize possession of less than 1 ounce. This thread has not even really discussed the use of marijuana for health reasons. This law is a god-send to thousands of medical marijuana users who get great relief from their pain and nausea (glaucoma, chemo etc. etc.) and now don't really have to hide from society. I'm relatively sure it won't be a 'gateway' drug for these folks.

I voted YES to the bill and I don't regret it. Of course our liberal government here in MA will probably find a way to tax it but that is for another discussion.

Russ

[Guest]

Pot smokers will argue ad infinitum how "wonderful" it is, how it's no different than the (new politically correct term) "gateway" drugs, and how nobody gets hurt.

Tobacco users use the same argument.

Alcohol absorbers claim the same, as long as "moderation" is maintained.

Stimulant users see no harm in the use of uppers.

The same holds true for those who use downers.

Cocaine snorters say there's no problem with "entertainment" use of this drug.

....and the list goes on and on.

The real problem is that no group wants to accept responsibility when others are indeed harmed by their "right to use" whatever they want to ingest.

Courtrooms are filled with folks use/abuse substances and cause auto accidents/assaults, beat someone half to death (or worse), or create some form of mayhem. In almost every circumstance, the "ingestor" claims no responsibility because "I didn't know what I was doing - I was drunk (or high)." The argument is always one of no responsibility due to lack of capacity (to think) because of the effect of the substance.

Personally, I don't care if you drink vodka, smoke old stogies, inhale torpedoes, snort lines or jab yourself silly. It's your body, and if you want to abuse it, as far as I'm concerned, that's your choice. BUT, if I'm expected to pay for your silliness, then I have rights. too - and that right includes the limiting of access or quantum of absorption, and holding you fully accountable for the harm you cause due to substance ingestion.

The key again is responsibility for action and results.. To me, there is NO EXCUSE for harm caused because a person took some sort of behavior-modification substance and the result is someone else got hurt or worse.

The excuse also that addiction itself escapes one from responsibility doesn't fly with me. This society is jammed with services to assist people from breaking (or radically mitigating) addictions of everything, and if you know you're an addict to any degree, you have a greater responsibility to protect others from your addiction-related actions.

Pot, tobacco, booze, crack, speed, and all the other stuff brings with it personal and public danger. Take all the risks you want, but be ready to pay for the results and don't say "it's not my fault, I'm hooked" or "it's not my fault, I didn't know what I was doing," or "it's not my fault, I couldn't control myself." or ""it's not my fault......" You owe that much to your neighbor.

So, promote whatever you want to be "legal," but be ready to stand up and take responsibility for what happens when the stuff is used and people get harmed because of it - directly or indirectly.This same argument applies to the completely sober operation of an automobile... "responsibility". Think of all the families and people harmed by the irresponsible use of an automobile. In Pa. a 16 yo can "legally" opereate a motor vehicle. It's much harded to legislate responsible operation of such.

[Guest]

This same argument applies to the completely sober operation of an automobile... "responsibility". Think of all the families and people harmed by the irresponsible use of an automobile. In Pa. a 16 yo can "legally" opereate a motor vehicle. It's much harded to legislate responsible operation of such.

...and that includes golf carts....

It's a shame that most of the "harmless pot smokers" never get to see the violence involved in the smuggling. Marijuana smuggling along the Southwest border is one of the three main reasons for the internal wars within Mexico involving the drug cartels, the Mexican Army, and the Mexican Police - with the populace caught in the middle. Those US urbanites who think it's "cool" to get a dime bag for party use never see the lives ruined or lost in the "supply" side of the equation - and probably don't give a darn, as long as they can "be cool."

[Guest]

It would appear that my thread was sort of hijacked to include alcohol and cigarette's along with pot. It probably makes sense since these are also mind altering drugs which in some way dull feelings, change behavior and effect basic health. Whether they are legal vs pot being illegal is not relevant other than from the standpoint of a pot user risking fines and jail to alter their behavior?
My basic question remains. Should the government loosen any of it's laws regarding another mind altering drug and why would someone want to dull their feeling with another escape route, (medical usage being an exception). I am not a medical person but as I understand it alcohol effects every organ in your body, cigarettes are a major cause of lung cancer and pot can cause birth defects, shrinks the stem of the brain, etc. and all cause some loss of feelings and changes in normal behavior. OK now tell me why it make sense to let loosen up another problem on our already swamped next generation.

[Guest]

pot can cause birth defects, shrinks the stem of the brain, etc.

I think I'd need you to quote some research on this. Of course I can imagine that in extremely large amounts anything is possible. But I'm talking about normal pot usage.

[Guest]

It's a shame that most of the "harmless pot smokers" never get to see the violence involved in the smuggling. Marijuana smuggling along the Southwest border is one of the three main reasons for the internal wars within Mexico involving the drug cartels, the Mexican Army, and the Mexican Police

True - but this is because it is illegal. Correct? During alcohol prohibition there were similar stories of violence and corruption when the populous needed to have their supply of the drug (alcohol). Once it became legal again we have different problems but not supply wars.

If you took a poll (completely anonymous) of those who grew up in the 50's-60's-70's the number of people who tried pot would be very high. If it wasn't 50% I'd be surprised. But this generation, the baby boomers, became honest productive members of society and didn't turn pot smoking into a lifelong addiction that took them away from the mainstream.

I really think pot is LESS dangerous than alcohol. If you put a gun to my head and said that I need to drive as a passenger in a car driven by an alcohol inebriated person or a pot inebriated person I'd take the pot guy all day long!

Again just my opinion.

[Guest]

OK now tell me why it make sense to let loosen up another problem on our already swamped next generation.

You ask why it makes sense to legalize pot?

You aren't creating a "new" problem! The problem already exists. People are smoking pot obtained illegally. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.

Legalizing pot may actually decrease the amount available on the streets today to underage children. It will allow the government to have some control over the situation. It will allow Law Enforcement to concentrate their efforts on more serious offenders than pot users.

It is happening anyway, why ignore it?

[Guest]

It would appear that my thread was sort of hijacked to include alcohol and cigarette's along with pot. It probably makes sense since these are also mind altering drugs which in some way dull feelings, change behavior and effect basic health. Whether they are legal vs pot being illegal is not relevant other than from the standpoint of a pot user risking fines and jail to alter their behavior?
My basic question remains. Should the government loosen any of it's laws regarding another mind altering drug and why would someone want to dull their feeling with another escape route, (medical usage being an exception). I am not a medical person but as I understand it alcohol effects every organ in your body, cigarettes are a major cause of lung cancer and pot can cause birth defects, shrinks the stem of the brain, etc. and all cause some loss of feelings and changes in normal behavior. OK now tell me why it make sense to let loosen up another problem on our already swamped next generation.

I won't pretend to be able to answer for everyone. Possible answers may include the following.
If there is no fundemental difference in marijuana use than alcohol use why are we spending hundreds of millions in the "fight against it? This basically feeds the criminal machine and crime and violence associated with it much as was the case in prohibition.
More specifically, your original reference was clarified by another poster, in that the present administration was stopping federal involvement of raids on cannabis clubs, which really exist primarily for those to old, sick, or infirm to get the marijuana by more "traditional" means for the symptoms they need to treat, ultimately leaving it to the states to decide. Lets be real, anyone that wants pot for recreational use has no problems in procuring it.
Are we loosening up another problem on our already swamped next generation? Perhaps, depending on your view. Are the same people asking these questions the same ones that cry for less federal government intervention and more personal resposibility? Not sure, but a valid question I think.
Before anyone accuses me of being an advocate for more and/or easier drug use realize nothing could be further from the truth. I have been and am constantly exposed to tradgedies associated with addiction to all 3 of the above mentioned substances and more. But addressing this in the context of the original post requires accurate information with regard to the political accusations, the whole "gateway" theory, and our double standard with more traditionally accepted drugs (i.e. alcohol/nicotine).
Personal resposibility? I am ALL for it, seems to be a lot of that missing these days. I think we as a society also have some responsibility to find more effective ways to treat addiction since we won't do away with all mind altering substances, but this is not a popular subject. And to keep perspective, not even the majority of those that try alcohol or marijuana end up addicted to anything. There are simply those that will succumb to the disease. But that is a whole different subject and thread.

[Guest]

If people are so dissatisfied with reality that they need chemically-induced escapism to cope or "feel good," I feel sorry for them.

The bottom line - Marijuana possession, use and trade is illegal, just like driving on the sidewalk, robbing gas stations and firing guns on city streets.

If you don't like the laws, change them. If the laws don't get changed because a wonderful majority like that which voted for "change" doesn't go along with legalizing marijuana, then the laws stand. Breaking laws because you "don't like them" or consider them stupid is called anarchy.

We are supposed to be a society of laws, not a society of feel-goods who consider themselves above the law because their recreation is more important than the will of the majority in a democratic republic.

There are many laws I don't like, and my choices are to: 1) seek change of the laws through the legislative process; 2) disobey the laws and suffer the consequences (if you can't do the time....); or 3) put up with it all. I've done #1, #2 is not an option because I'm not an anarchist and don't want to be classified as a criminal; and #3 gets the most points.

So, which is it to be? Anarchy or Democracy? Do we show our kids that laws matter, or just only the ones that we "like" actually matter? How hypocritical is it to tell kids to "be lawful" while demonstrating the reverse behavior because "we wanna..." ?

There has been a lot of comparison to alcohol and tobacco, and for these substances there has been considerable legislation to include constitutional amendments. If anyone feels so strongly that marijuana use et al should be legal, then go through the hard work and effort involved in the legislative process to get laws changed. If the laws do get changed, then your problem is solved. If they don't get changed, you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be........

[Guest]

You ask why it makes sense to legalize pot?

You aren't creating a "new" problem! The problem already exists. People are smoking pot obtained illegally. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.

Legalizing pot may actually decrease the amount available on the streets today to underage children. It will allow the government to have some control over the situation. It will allow Law Enforcement to concentrate their efforts on more serious offenders than pot users.

It is happening anyway, why ignore it?
You are right. The problem should not be ignored. However, laws are laws, and just because certain people think an offense is "minor" does not change the fact that an apparent majority consider it serious enough to merit criminal prosecution.

Perhaps if enough of the white-collar users got arrested for use, then the demand would go down and the supply problem would diminish in like manner? And by "enough" is a significant number of the users instead of just a small percentage.

People who speed in cars, shoplift small-dollar amounts, create loud noises in neighborhoods during late hours, and are involved in a host of other endeavors all say the same thing - law enforcement should give them a pass and enforce the "more serious" laws. So, until those who commit the act can convince legislators to change laws, those committing the act are law-breakers - period! And the same people complain that the younger generation(s) have no respect for "the law."

What I don't understand is that when one acquires marijuana for personal use, they have absolutely no idea of what is really in the bag, what chemicals may have been sprayed or soaked into the product, and no protection as to the "quality" or purity of the substance, YET they will argue for "organic" foodstuffs and read every ingredient label on each supermarket product before purchasing or ingesting a product that has a chemical mixed into it..

[Guest]

Steve hit a nail on a head.

When pot is involved...how do you legislate the various types of weed? If you legalize it...then are you legalizing all forms of pot? Being a former pot smoker 10 years ago, I have tried many different types and some were actually very safe...others were off the chart in THC content. The Colombian brown "dirt weed" was very light stuff. Jamaican and Hawaiian were stronger. But then you get hydroponic labs that calculate everything...the perfect soil and conditions to grow the best buds and sometimes the batches are amazingly potent. Green Dragon, Purple Dinosaur, White Rhino, Orange Lizard...one bong hit of some of that and you go to a different place for about 20 minutes. How can they possibly legislate that? It is just as powerful a lot of harder drugs...but for a shorter duration.

That would force government to agree to a safe THC content...like that could ever happen.

I hear the government grown pot is pretty strong compared to the average stuff. The real problem is that people with Aids, glaucoma and other health issues are really helped by the stuff. Should the government be the only ones that should have the right to grow the pot and sell it? Should it be legalized for health issue only? Do you need to be over 21? What if you are under 21 and are sick? It creates a quagmire. Should our health insurance cover it?

The entire country [minus 54 million] must have been stoned to elect Obama in the first place. :shrug::faint:

[Guest]

100% of sexaholics started with "normal sex, too. So, let's ban sex. Workaholics, oh, right, so let's ban work. Gambling, let's ban that too. Oh, and religious fanatics, so let's ban religion. Why don't we just get back to what our founding fathers really wanted, that being consensual, or victemless acts not being disciplined. If you harm someone, or their property, those are the things out legal system should be set up for. Getting government out of the rest of our lives is what we should be striving for. As someone else stated, prohibition didn't work, the death penalty isn't a deterrent, so many laws have no effect, and never will. For anyone that would REALLY like to open mindedly discuss this, perhaps read this book first Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do
The absurdity of consensual crimes in our free country—Peter McWilliams

[Guest]

Just WHY is pot illegal? Would you outlaw it today based upon its own value or lack thereof? Why would you outlaw pot today if today were day one of hearings to do so?

Yoda

[Guest]

I think your message was and is excellent. It goes to the core of problem. I can remember some years ago in the 60's or 70's a rather popular religious person spoke on TV, (the religion is not important). and they said one of the problems was that people wanted to and did break the law but did not want to pay the consequences. If you break the law you should be prepared and accept the consequenses of your acts. That applies today as it has over the last centuries. Thanks for a good message.

[Guest]

100% of sexaholics started with "normal sex, too. So, let's ban sex.

My wife beat the government to the punch:laugh:

[Guest]

Just WHY is pot illegal? Would you outlaw it today based upon its own value or lack thereof? Why would you outlaw pot today if today were day one of hearings to do so?

Yoda
Why have prescription drugs at all? Should they all be over-the-counter, including morphine and anything else that can affect perception and judgment? If not, then where is the bright line?

When amateur pharmacologists and chemists dabble in areas where science is considered necessary to determine all of the what-if's, that's when severe and dangerous errors occur. It's the same whenever amateurs try to make experiment in areas which contains trained and experienced professionals. It does not matter if it is lawyers making medical decisions, physicians playing lawyer, or any other similar circumstance.

The "legalize pot" bandwagon, especially when the wagon is painted and pulled by individuals with no true scientific knowledge in the subject and only see it as a toy for their recreation, lacks credence.

When a consortium of reputable medical research institutes - such as Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. - are willing to present a viable case to the Food and Drug Administration that marijuana taken of X quality taken in Y quantum over Z time frame is tolerable to the human system to a to-be-determined criteria, then the same protection to the public that we demand of bottled ketchup and canned beer can be attained. Doesn't the public deserve that much, even those who only want to play with the stuff?

[Guest]

I'm sorry. I read your response but I couldn't find the line that said "I would outlaw pot because......................

Could you make it a one paragraph answer? Perhaps one line?

[Guest]

I am not trying to justify legalizing pot. I question the wiseness of seeing it advertised. I taught drugs to security people and sone police officers at one time. I taught the history of drug usage as a part of the course. Pot was very interesting and hence my question.

[Guest]

my wife beat the government to the punch:laugh:

lolololololololololololololololol!

[Guest]

I'm sorry. I read your response but I couldn't find the line that said "I would outlaw pot because......................

Could you make it a one paragraph answer? Perhaps one line?

I would outlaw pot because....mind-altering substances in the hands of amateurs provides great potential for danger to those in proximity of the substance user.

The "I can handle it" excuse is lame, because while "you" as the center of the universe think "you" have that much self-control to not be a danger, "you" do not control your drug-using neighbor who may not be as disciplined as "you" are. It's no different than "you" are a great driver who does not need to be bothered with speed laws and lane usage because of your great reflexes and perception, but your neighbor may not be as good a driver as you and needs restriction so as not to be an on-the-road danger.

How's that?

[Guest]

Steve hit a nail on a head.

When pot is involved...how do you legislate the various types of weed? If you legalize it...then are you legalizing all forms of pot? Being a former pot smoker 10 years ago, I have tried many different types and some were actually very safe...others were off the chart in THC content. The Colombian brown "dirt weed" was very light stuff. Jamaican and Hawaiian were stronger. But then you get hydroponic labs that calculate everything...the perfect soil and conditions to grow the best buds and sometimes the batches are amazingly potent. Green Dragon, Purple Dinosaur, White Rhino, Orange Lizard...one bong hit of some of that and you go to a different place for about 20 minutes. How can they possibly legislate that? It is just as powerful a lot of harder drugs...but for a shorter duration.

That would force government to agree to a safe THC content...like that could ever happen.

I hear the government grown pot is pretty strong compared to the average stuff. The real problem is that people with Aids, glaucoma and other health issues are really helped by the stuff. Should the government be the only ones that should have the right to grow the pot and sell it? Should it be legalized for health issue only? Do you need to be over 21? What if you are under 21 and are sick? It creates a quagmire. Should our health insurance cover it?

The entire country [minus 54 million] must have been stoned to elect Obama in the first place. :shrug::faint:

Well, we certainly hope you weren't "stoned" when you went into the voting booth! You seem to be an expert. I, personally, am only advocating the legalization for medical purposes. ;)

[Guest]

Why have prescription drugs at all? Should they all be over-the-counter, including morphine and anything else that can affect perception and judgment? If not, then where is the bright line?

When amateur pharmacologists and chemists dabble in areas where science is considered necessary to determine all of the what-if's, that's when severe and dangerous errors occur. It's the same whenever amateurs try to make experiment in areas which contains trained and experienced professionals. It does not matter if it is lawyers making medical decisions, physicians playing lawyer, or any other similar circumstance.

The "legalize pot" bandwagon, especially when the wagon is painted and pulled by individuals with no true scientific knowledge in the subject and only see it as a toy for their recreation, lacks credence.

When a consortium of reputable medical research institutes - such as Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. - are willing to present a viable case to the Food and Drug Administration that marijuana taken of X quality taken in Y quantum over Z time frame is tolerable to the human system to a to-be-determined criteria, then the same protection to the public that we demand of bottled ketchup and canned beer can be attained. Doesn't the public deserve that much, even those who only want to play with the stuff?
The FDA can't even keep us safe from peanuts!

[Guest]

A current doctoral thesis from Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, on the neurobiological effects of early life cannabis exposure, gives support for the cannabis gateway hypothesis in relation to adult opiate abuse. THC exposed rats showed increased motivation for opiate drug use under conditions of stress. However, the cannabis exposure did not correlate to amphetamine use.
Research has shown that cannabis acts to increase heart frequency by as much as 40 beats per minute. A study reported by The American Heart Association in February 2000, concluded that smoking marijuana can precipitate a heart attack in persons with preexisting heart conditions. One hour after smoking marijuana, the likelihood of having a heart attack is four and one-half times greater than if the person had not smoked, according to the research.
An additional health concern is the effect that marijuana smoking has on the lungs. Cannabis smoke carries more tars and other particulate matter than tobacco smoke.
More seriously, marijuana has been linked to the onset or worsening of certain psychiatric conditions, including panic disorder, schizophrenia, and depersonalization disorder. Persons diagnosed with or at risk for these conditions should not use marijuana.
No health hazards or side effects are known in conjunction with the proper administration of designated therapeutic dosages." Smoking the herb, however, "… leads almost at once to euphoric states (pronounced gaiety, laughing fits)," according to the PDR, while "long term usage leads to a clear increase in tolerance for most of the pharmacological effects." The ability to safely operate automobiles and machinery can be impaired for up to eight hours after ingesting the herb. Chronic abuse results in "laryngitis, bronchitis, apathy, psychic decline and disturbances of genital functions," according to the PDR.
Some people may be hypersensitive to marijuana. They may be allergic or hypersensitive to the plant. Chronic sinus fungal infections have been linked to chronic marijuana smoking.
THC Substance abuse A substance derived from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, the leaves of which are smoked, producing a hallucinogenic effect due to the neurochemical Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol–THC, which has a cognate THC receptor in the brain Immune system THC blocks monocyte maturation Nervous system Impaired motor skills, defective eye tracking and perception; THC receptors are most abundant in the hippocampus, where memory is consolidated, explaining MJ's detrimental effect on memory and least abundant in the brainstem, explaining why death by overdose is unknown with chronic marijuana abuse; heavy use is associated with residual neuropsychological effects, as evidenced by ↑ perseverations on card-sorting, and ↓ learning of lists Respiratory tract MJ is inhaled or 'toked' in a fashion that differs from that of tobacco; in order to maximize THC absorption and elicit the desired 'high.', the subject prolongs inhalation, markedly ↑ carbon monoxide and tar, and thus is possibly more detrimental than tobacco smoke Therapeutic uses MJ is an analgesic, but unusable as such, due to the inseparable hallucinogenic effect; it is of use for 1. Control of N&V in terminal CA–2 antiemetic cannabinoids are

[Guest]

Ok good research.

Next time could you use spacing a little better for readability? Tough on the old eyes!

I still stick by my assertion that I'd rather be in the car with a stoner than a drunk! Of course neither one should be driving.

[Guest]

A current doctoral thesis from Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, on the neurobiological effects of early life cannabis exposure, gives support for the cannabis gateway hypothesis in relation to adult opiate abuse. THC exposed rats showed increased motivation for opiate drug use under conditions of stress. However, the cannabis exposure did not correlate to amphetamine use.
Research has shown that cannabis acts to increase heart frequency by as much as 40 beats per minute. A study reported by The American Heart Association in February 2000, concluded that smoking marijuana can precipitate a heart attack in persons with preexisting heart conditions. One hour after smoking marijuana, the likelihood of having a heart attack is four and one-half times greater than if the person had not smoked, according to the research.
An additional health concern is the effect that marijuana smoking has on the lungs. Cannabis smoke carries more tars and other particulate matter than tobacco smoke.
More seriously, marijuana has been linked to the onset or worsening of certain psychiatric conditions, including panic disorder, schizophrenia, and depersonalization disorder. Persons diagnosed with or at risk for these conditions should not use marijuana.
No health hazards or side effects are known in conjunction with the proper administration of designated therapeutic dosages." Smoking the herb, however, "… leads almost at once to euphoric states (pronounced gaiety, laughing fits)," according to the PDR, while "long term usage leads to a clear increase in tolerance for most of the pharmacological effects." The ability to safely operate automobiles and machinery can be impaired for up to eight hours after ingesting the herb. Chronic abuse results in "laryngitis, bronchitis, apathy, psychic decline and disturbances of genital functions," according to the PDR.
Some people may be hypersensitive to marijuana. They may be allergic or hypersensitive to the plant. Chronic sinus fungal infections have been linked to chronic marijuana smoking.
THC Substance abuse A substance derived from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, the leaves of which are smoked, producing a hallucinogenic effect due to the neurochemical Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol–THC, which has a cognate THC receptor in the brain Immune system THC blocks monocyte maturation Nervous system Impaired motor skills, defective eye tracking and perception; THC receptors are most abundant in the hippocampus, where memory is consolidated, explaining MJ's detrimental effect on memory and least abundant in the brainstem, explaining why death by overdose is unknown with chronic marijuana abuse; heavy use is associated with residual neuropsychological effects, as evidenced by ↑ perseverations on card-sorting, and ↓ learning of lists Respiratory tract MJ is inhaled or 'toked' in a fashion that differs from that of tobacco; in order to maximize THC absorption and elicit the desired 'high.', the subject prolongs inhalation, markedly ↑ carbon monoxide and tar, and thus is possibly more detrimental than tobacco smoke Therapeutic uses MJ is an analgesic, but unusable as such, due to the inseparable hallucinogenic effect; it is of use for 1. Control of N&V in terminal CA–2 antiemetic cannabinoids areExcellent post. This scientifically supports my position that it isn't healthy to use and unsafe in some (?most) instances. The question or point, however, of the thread was whether the use of it should be decriminalized. Remember, we know alcohol, alcoholism, chronic alcoholic liver disease, the tragic consequences of DUI imparts a huge economic, social, health, personal toll on our nation. At some point the legislators recognized prohibition of its use, sale, manufacture could not be successfully carried out by the Federal gov't. That is the current issue re cannabis.

[Guest]

alcohol, which as I have just used the word is all encompassing and generic...alcohol!
A more appropriate comparison should be the comparison of alcohol ABUSERS to pot users. This would exclude the masses of us that enjoy beverages with an alcoholic content and varying flavor or function.

Addiction issues. I guess that is a function of the brain of each individual.
To obese people is food an addiction? If yes does it qualify for comparison like alcohol abuse? Pot use? Food abuse (obese/fat!)?

Can drug use in moderation be good for anybody? Scientific conclusions say no.

How about other addictions that lead to death and dismemberment? Like cell phones and driving.

You will see how attitudes about the subject matter shift as one or another includes individuals.....OR NOT!!!

BTK

[Guest]

[QUOTE=SteveZ;191638]I would outlaw pot because....mind-altering substances in the hands of amateurs provides great potential for danger to those in proximity of the substance user.

As best I understand your position, anything that would pose a "Potential" threat to those in proximity should be outlawed.

do you support prohibition of alcohol?

Peanuts? They won't even serve them if anyone on the plane is allergic.

I see good reason to outlaw behavior. It is hard to justify outlawing a substance that may or may not have a direct influence on that behavior.

I am not a pot user but I am also not a nanny stater.

Thank you for your view point.

Yoda

[Guest]

We spend millions and millions of dollars trying to repair the effects of alcohol and drugs on our society through detox centers, crisis centers and rehabs.and professionals. We should distinguish that alcohol is a "desease". To be classified as a "disease" it must have a) symptoms and b) be predictable. And alcohol and alcoholics falls under this definition. It is unclear that marijuana has ever been identified as a disease and from all of the data I have seen it has not.
I wonder how many that would like to see pot decriminalized have visited a detox center or a crisis center or a rehab. How many have tried to give therapy to someone who is in the last stages of their life because of drug or alcohol usage and abuse. Or have seen the effects on the family.
Having said this I have a hard time understanding why we would want to unload another drug on the already stressed out next generation and set up more detox, rehabs and professionals to handle the influx of abusers. I hear the argument that trying to police it is costing a great deal of money. I believe it is folly to think it will not have to be policed if legal and the costs of treatments will mimic those of the other drug users and health costs will be significantly impacted.
I am not a do gooder and not fanatic on the usage of alcohol but I am practical and am a believer that somewhere all this "lets distort reality" should be controled.

[Guest]

A current doctoral thesis from Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, on the neurobiological effects of early life cannabis exposure, gives support for the cannabis gateway hypothesis in relation to adult opiate abuse. THC exposed rats showed increased motivation for opiate drug use under conditions of stress. However, the cannabis exposure did not correlate to amphetamine use.
Research has shown that cannabis acts to increase heart frequency by as much as 40 beats per minute. A study reported by The American Heart Association in February 2000, concluded that smoking marijuana can precipitate a heart attack in persons with preexisting heart conditions. One hour after smoking marijuana, the likelihood of having a heart attack is four and one-half times greater than if the person had not smoked, according to the research.
An additional health concern is the effect that marijuana smoking has on the lungs. Cannabis smoke carries more tars and other particulate matter than tobacco smoke.
More seriously, marijuana has been linked to the onset or worsening of certain psychiatric conditions, including panic disorder, schizophrenia, and depersonalization disorder. Persons diagnosed with or at risk for these conditions should not use marijuana.
No health hazards or side effects are known in conjunction with the proper administration of designated therapeutic dosages." Smoking the herb, however, "… leads almost at once to euphoric states (pronounced gaiety, laughing fits)," according to the PDR, while "long term usage leads to a clear increase in tolerance for most of the pharmacological effects." The ability to safely operate automobiles and machinery can be impaired for up to eight hours after ingesting the herb. Chronic abuse results in "laryngitis, bronchitis, apathy, psychic decline and disturbances of genital functions," according to the PDR.
Some people may be hypersensitive to marijuana. They may be allergic or hypersensitive to the plant. Chronic sinus fungal infections have been linked to chronic marijuana smoking.
THC Substance abuse A substance derived from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, the leaves of which are smoked, producing a hallucinogenic effect due to the neurochemical Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol–THC, which has a cognate THC receptor in the brain Immune system THC blocks monocyte maturation Nervous system Impaired motor skills, defective eye tracking and perception; THC receptors are most abundant in the hippocampus, where memory is consolidated, explaining MJ's detrimental effect on memory and least abundant in the brainstem, explaining why death by overdose is unknown with chronic marijuana abuse; heavy use is associated with residual neuropsychological effects, as evidenced by ↑ perseverations on card-sorting, and ↓ learning of lists Respiratory tract MJ is inhaled or 'toked' in a fashion that differs from that of tobacco; in order to maximize THC absorption and elicit the desired 'high.', the subject prolongs inhalation, markedly ↑ carbon monoxide and tar, and thus is possibly more detrimental than tobacco smoke Therapeutic uses MJ is an analgesic, but unusable as such, due to the inseparable hallucinogenic effect; it is of use for 1. Control of N&V in terminal CA–2 antiemetic cannabinoids are


OK. And the point is?

[Guest]

As the saying goes..I can give you what I believe is the answer but I can't help you understand it.

[Guest]

...and that includes golf carts....

It's a shame that most of the "harmless pot smokers" never get to see the violence involved in the smuggling. Marijuana smuggling along the Southwest border is one of the three main reasons for the internal wars within Mexico involving the drug cartels, the Mexican Army, and the Mexican Police - with the populace caught in the middle. Those US urbanites who think it's "cool" to get a dime bag for party use never see the lives ruined or lost in the "supply" side of the equation - and probably don't give a darn, as long as they can "be cool."

EXACTLY!

The people that are truly the criminals are the foreign countries that import marijuana. Importation of marijuana is a War we will never win. It been a losing battle ever since the War started. How many billions of dollars could our government make in manufacturing and supplying our country with marijuana? How much money and lives would be saved?

Persons against imposing a tax argue that consumers will only grow it themselves therefore marijuana is non taxable. I say BULLSHI*. 90% of Americans don't have the time patience or skill to produce a fine crop of Sensi. It's the same with alcohol. Sure some people will make it themselves but a large majority would rather go somewhere safe and purchase it legally. Seriously who wants to buy Mexican weed that has god knows what pesticide sprayed on it that is probably molded and weak in THC. People need to step aside and actually look at the positive benefits of marijuana and set aside their previous instilled scare tactic beliefs. Research has proved that marijuana is as safe as cup of coffee. So why don't you put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Guest]

alcohol, which as I have just used the word is all encompassing and generic...alcohol!
A more appropriate comparison should be the comparison of alcohol ABUSERS to pot users. This would exclude the masses of us that enjoy beverages with an alcoholic content and varying flavor or function.

Addiction issues. I guess that is a function of the brain of each individual.
To obese people is food an addiction? If yes does it qualify for comparison like alcohol abuse? Pot use? Food abuse (obese/fat!)?

Can drug use in moderation be good for anybody? Scientific conclusions say no.

How about other addictions that lead to death and dismemberment? Like cell phones and driving.

You will see how attitudes about the subject matter shift as one or another includes individuals.....OR NOT!!!

BTKethyl alcohol is a drug, can be used as a general anesthetic (in high enough doses).

[Guest]

[QUOTE=SteveZ;191638]I would outlaw pot because....mind-altering substances in the hands of amateurs provides great potential for danger to those in proximity of the substance user.

As best I understand your position, anything that would pose a "Potential" threat to those in proximity should be outlawed.

do you support prohibition of alcohol?

Peanuts? They won't even serve them if anyone on the plane is allergic.

I see good reason to outlaw behavior. It is hard to justify outlawing a substance that may or may not have a direct influence on that behavior.

I am not a pot user but I am also not a nanny stater.

Thank you for your view point.

Yoda

Most laws restrict behavior where the use of a substance, product, tool, device poses a potential threat to the populace, whether the harm is to the user or to bystanders. That includes, as examples, firearms, fireworks, motor vehicles, most chemicals, and almost all (save those over-the-counter) pharmaceuticals.

Laws get proposed not because of the potential of harm, but of actual experience in same or similar situations. The basis is always the same - the majority are to be protected from the minority who lack the common sense or motivation not to abuse the product to the detriment of others.

We should not need laws to tell us not to do a lot of things, but there is always a segment of the population which anarchistically could care less about others as long as their "fun" is not restricted. It's not being a "nanny state" when there are so many "I don't give a %@$#" people out there who can't do things without negatively affecting others.

We would not need to outlaw or restrict anything if people respected the rights of others as they pursued their own goals. These days there seems to be an "I am the center of the universe, and my pleasure is more important than your right not to be impacted by me" attitude permeating society.

If marijuana has a medical value, then it can and should be controlled, according to the consensus of the best medical minds, and not just a couple of self-serving radical physicians. I would like to think the American Medical Association and state medical boards - who function under scientific discipline rather than wishful desires - would provide professional counsel to the vote-panderers of the legislature as to merits, extent and logic of governmental decisions regarding marijuana in American society.

And again, the ballot box and the legislative process is where laws are changed. "Civil disobedience" is just a sexy way to say "scofflaw," and those who practice "civil disobedience" should be ready to appreciate all the joys and pleasures of being arrested, the booking process, a permanent record (complete expungment really doesn't happen!) and legal costs associated with the experience. That's the minimum, even if found "not guilty."

[Guest]

We spend millions and millions of dollars trying to repair the effects of alcohol and drugs on our society through detox centers, crisis centers and rehabs.and professionals. We should distinguish that alcohol is a "desease". To be classified as a "disease" it must have a) symptoms and b) be predictable. And alcohol and alcoholics falls under this definition. It is unclear that marijuana has ever been identified as a disease and from all of the data I have seen it has not.
I wonder how many that would like to see pot decriminalized have visited a detox center or a crisis center or a rehab. How many have tried to give therapy to someone who is in the last stages of their life because of drug or alcohol usage and abuse. Or have seen the effects on the family.
Having said this I have a hard time understanding why we would want to unload another drug on the already stressed out next generation and set up more detox, rehabs and professionals to handle the influx of abusers. I hear the argument that trying to police it is costing a great deal of money. I believe it is folly to think it will not have to be policed if legal and the costs of treatments will mimic those of the other drug users and health costs will be significantly impacted.
I am not a do gooder and not fanatic on the usage of alcohol but I am practical and am a believer that somewhere all this "lets distort reality" should be controled.Alcohol use is already "controlled". In fact, in my home state of Pa, you can only buy wine or spirits in "state stores" and beer by the case at "beer distributors". The original question in this very long thread was not about "controlling" its use... it was about decriminalizing it's use...a huge difference. Your point about the devastating effects of alcohol abuse/dependence are right on. I suspect this is one of the reasons prohibition was enacted. I wasn't around for that but I suspect the repeal of prohibition was, in part, due to the realization that it didn't work.

[Guest]

Your most likely right when it came to Prohibition. As I understand history alcohol had been used and accepted and then revoked. Since it had already been introduced into society and it's effects enjoyed and some strong public economics built on its use it was not something that was going to go away. Even some churches used it for Communion and it was a stable in some countries as it is today.
I would vote against ever decriminalizing pot as I personally don't think we need another mind altering, reality avoidance, expensive investments in detox centers, crisis centers, rehabs and Professionals so someone can light up and be happy to fake out their feelings. I am just one small voice and would wield to the majority.

[Guest]

As the saying goes..I can give you what I believe is the answer but I can't help you understand it.


What is exactly is the point of citing a thesis, which is just that...a thesis...a declaration of what one believes and intends to prove? Not exactly on a par with a double blinded placebo controlled study, or even a meta-analysis (an even easier standard).
Almost all of the above symptoms and hypothesis can be attributed to both alcohol and tobacco smoking.

So it really was an honest question, despite the trite reply. With all due respect I was actually curious.

And yes the thread has really drifted. But in a good way generally I think, lots a varied and interesting opinions. The OP I think was the declaration that somehow the present administration was decreasing the intervention/prosecution on a federal level of marijuana users. That was corrected to say that were not interfering on a federal level with "cannibus clubs" that really are in place for the sick folks that need it.
And to be clear, we are not "unleashing" a new scourge on humanity, I think the debate is how we handle it, it has been and will be around forever. I doubt any of us has the perfect solution, but a lot of intelligent comments here about it.

[Guest]

Drugs, including pot, are outlawed because too many people are benefitting from their being illegal.

These benefits are provided to the people who provide the drugs and the government that purports to want to eliminate them. The benefits to the people who produce and wholesale the drugs are obvious. Equally obvious are the benefits to the street level dealers. In addition to the profits from selling drugs, drug usage provides additional income streams from prostitution and loan sharking.

What we try to ignore is the concurrent benefit to politicians and the police. The drug trade could not go on without their tacit approval in exchange for favors, cash or whatever. The cast of characters is not the same as it was during prohibition, but the payoffs remain.

In addition, the ‘war’ on drugs has produced vast new bereaucracies at all levels of government. First, and most obvious is the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). However, the greatest beneficiary of the prohibition on drugs is the prison industry. Over one-half the inmates of our local, state and national prisons are there because of drug related offenses. Billions go into the construction, maintenance and staffing of the institutions. Billions more go into the rehabilitation and parole system.

A large portion of our current police forces are focused directly on drugs just as they were on booze in the era of prohibition. Legalizing drugs would free up there resources for use elsewhere but would threaten too many incomes on both sides of the law. This is why prohibition lasted so long. Criminals, politicians and police all benefitted. The situation is the same today – our politicians will condemn drug usage and the police will continue to ‘crack down’, all while carefully not noticing their wallets being filled.

[Guest]

this thread was painful to read through because it is filled with so many misconceptions and contorted facts. It reminds me of reefer madness. Winning an argument about pot legalization is like winning the special Olympics. You may win but your still retarded. :shrug:

[Guest]

I would like to thank everyone who responded and partiicpated in this string of notes. Whether I am right or wrong is not important as it has been in my opinion , a good exchange of ideas and feelings. I found I started to repeat myself so will go on to other things. I do feel the last note was insensitive to the poor suffering children with handicaps which they did not sign up for when they were born.

[Guest]

has been much more fun than talking about how we are all going to be thoroughly screwed in the coming NEW DEAL. Don't you think?

[Guest]

has been much more fun than talking about how we are all going to be thoroughly screwed in the coming NEW DEAL. Don't you think?

Remember the Brownies?
And if you've never been to Chinatown in NY and ate pan fried dumplings after the brownies you haven't lived!
Ah the munchies:icon_hungry:

[Guest]

Remember the Brownies?
And if you've never been to Chinatown in NY and ate pan fried dumplings after the brownies you haven't lived!
Ah the munchies:icon_hungry:

Alice B Tokeless brownies of the 60's? That was another era. A simpler time. When love, love was in the air. The days of the flower child. Birth of the pill. (no pun intended) The burning of the bra. Yes my friend, those were the days.

I am sure that we will here from those who had an entirly different take on the 60's.

I had fun. Did you?;)

[Guest]

Alice B Tokeless brownies of the 60's? That was another era. A simpler time. When love, love was in the air. The days of the flower child. Birth of the pill. (no pun intended) The burning of the bra. Yes my friend, those were the days.

I am sure that we will here from those who had an entirly different take on the 60's.

I had fun. Did you?;)

Short shorts, mini skirts and Twiggy eyes, the Beatles, Stones and The Dave Clark Five. What's not to like!
Yes we did have fun:pepper2::pepper2::pepper2:

[Guest]

Alice B Tokeless brownies of the 60's? That was another era. A simpler time. When love, love was in the air. The days of the flower child. Birth of the pill. (no pun intended) The burning of the bra. Yes my friend, those were the days.

I am sure that we will here from those who had an entirly different take on the 60's.

I had fun. Did you?;)

Absolutely.
Peace and Love. :0000000000luvmyhors

[Guest]

Except for now -- absolutely the best time! :coolsmiley:

[Guest]

Absolutely.
Peace and Love. :0000000000luvmyhors

I am trying not to hate you guys right now. This would be my greatest area of envy...era envy...

I was born in 1962. I would have given my left buckeyenut to see The Doors...or Cream...or Hendrix. Woodstock? I would have been front row center. I love the music of that era and have a huge collection. At 46, I still sing professionally and do Jim Morrison pretty much spot on. I found a video of It's A Beautiful Day on youtube...it was amazing! I have worn that cd out. White Bird...in a golden cage...

I also missed Led Zeppelin and The Who in their prime. I missed it all.

You know what I got? The 80's!

Sweathogs, those ugly clothes and disco! It is hard to look cool when your parents buy you a leisure suit and take you to the Moose Lodge to square dance. You guys are dropping a lid and I get aerobics...:cus:

You get the Strawberry Alarm Clock...The Zombies...Electric Prunes...Cosby, Stills, Nash and Young...Tommy James...The Turtles...Mamas and Papas...Janis!...Pink Floyd...Good Morning, Starshine and Valley of the Dolls.

I got adam ant, Boy George and the sex pistols. All my leaves were not brown and the sky was not gray and that is not fair.

I do have one thing though...I own every episode of The Mod Squad! :evil6:

You had The Godfather...:0000000000luvmyhors

I had Ishtar!

You had H.R.Pufinstuff and damn, dirty apes!

No....I can't do this to myself any longer...good night!

We need to start a music of the 60's and 70's thread now...

oh, I do thank God and the heavens above that I did miss that awful war...God Bless our troops of yesterday and today.

[Guest]

...and that includes golf carts....

It's a shame that most of the "harmless pot smokers" never get to see the violence involved in the smuggling. Marijuana smuggling along the Southwest border is one of the three main reasons for the internal wars within Mexico involving the drug cartels, the Mexican Army, and the Mexican Police - with the populace caught in the middle. Those US urbanites who think it's "cool" to get a dime bag for party use never see the lives ruined or lost in the "supply" side of the equation - and probably don't give a darn, as long as they can "be cool."Violence is used in the robbing of jewelry stores and banks, also, so let's outlaw diamonds and money!! Watch the movie Blood Diamond, too, and you will see the "supply" side violence of that industry.

[Guest]

OK, they are stopping raids on the clubs which I think is consistent with my point that they are not going to enforce or control (federal basis) some pot usage (e.g. at the clubs which is a beginning). You can argue small points but the overall fact is that more usage will result from less enforcement's.
If your point is that is OK then so be it and you have a right to your opinion.
As far as getting facts straight lets agree that 2 Therapists with more than 50years of treating drug and alcohol additions will support that pot is a gateway drug and in fact in one case one said that a significant majority of heavy drugs users which were treated started with pot.
Is your mind clearer or more foggy when using drugs, is there a better picture of reality when using than not using, is there more or less crime when more drugs are used? And so on. I also understand that the federal government would turn the control/enforcement over to the states. Again, one less control over usage, (e.g. federal government stopping any single form of enforcement.)
I am not a fanatic on the subject but just believe it is not a plus to any society.

so if this is a new TV club sign me up lol :pepper2:

[Guest]

Violence is used in the robbing of jewelry stores and banks, also, so let's outlaw diamonds and money!! Watch the movie Blood Diamond, too, and you will see the "supply" side violence of that industry.
And that proves what?

If people want to justify their reasons for breaking the law because other laws are also being broken, I can't debate illogic!

In the end it's always a simple thing. If you don't like the laws, see if you can get them changed. If you do, hooray for you. If you don't, your options are obvious.

What a world we have if the policy is, " I obey all the laws I want to, and don't obey those I don't like because they keep me from doing what I want to. "

[Guest]

With regards to the person who would have liked to be at Woodstock. Actually the action was in the little town of Bethel outside of Woodstock and it was on farmers field. The field was totally mud, the attendee's were covered with mud, most high and I seriously doubt if they ever remembered where they had been or what they had heard. There was great music playing to a drugged out crowd. Even today if you go to Woodstock on the weekends there are old hippies in the little square and the little booths sell pot pipes and other drug paraphernalia. It is also a town of some wealth with a lot of the citizens spending weekends up from New York City. In fact on Sunday you can watch the bus from NYC pick up the old hippies as they go back to the City.

[Guest]

And that proves what?

If people want to justify their reasons for breaking the law because other laws are also being broken, I can't debate illogic!

In the end it's always a simple thing. If you don't like the laws, see if you can get them changed. If you do, hooray for you. If you don't, your options are obvious.

What a world we have if the policy is, " I obey all the laws I want to, and don't obey those I don't like because they keep me from doing what I want to. " The statement was about the violence used in the drug cartels, and such, which sounded like a justification for the arguement of upholding drug laws. My point is, that in so many other bizzes, there is violence, also. And look at the damage done without violence, in embzzlement, pyramid schemes, and so many others, doing just as much damage to people, yet, since it is a "white collar" crime, the penalties are not nearly as steep, even though these infractions cause loss of peoples life savings, bizzes, families, and also sometimes life, as people get so distraught and take their own lives. Wether you agree with legalization or not, Holland has such lax drug laws, and per capita, has an incredibly low rate of theft, robberies, and murder. Those are facts. Boils down to me, that I am a proponent of getting federal government out of the people's hair as much as possible, for economic and legal reasons, and leaving it to local towns, counties, and states to make policy for their area, as I believe our constitution was truely meant to be. Is a very good debate, and glad to see this thread has taken the high road, (no pun intended, well, maybe a little) and not got as nasty as so many other topics in the politcal category.

[Guest]

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You'll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

If you are interested, from a political point of view, Pot has a very interesting history:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

[Guest]

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You'll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

If you are interested, from a political point of view, Pot has a very interesting history:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html
Kinda like the stimulus package.....

Well, if the Democratic Party Members of Congress want to reverse federal drug laws, (and can get 3 Republicans in the Senate to agree), then the laws change. UNTIL THEN, the law is still the law.

[Guest]

Kinda like the stimulus package.....

Well, if the Democratic Party Members of Congress want to reverse federal drug laws, (and can get 3 Republicans in the Senate to agree), then the laws change. UNTIL THEN, the law is still the law. You know, don't know about you, but 90 percent of Americans break laws all the time in their own bedrooms. Do you know the local laws about sex in so many places state some normal sexual acts are illegal? And for what, the religious right, which, in case you don't know, are sometimes the biggest breakers of these laws? I agree with you, that, if we don't agree with a law, we have two choices, but, when the laws are so archaic, sometimes, just have to say forget it. And if you have never broken a law, then by all means, cast the first stone.

[Guest]

The Wall Street Journal has reported that the new Obama policy on marijuana use and regulation will be an 'economic stimulus' for the Mexican drug cartels. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123595140575504953.html

In a side note, legislation legalizing marijuana sales through the state and taxing it are under serious discussion in the CA legislature. This is an attempt to close the budget deficit. This is no minor source of cash. Marijuana is CA'a biggest cash crop as it is for Florida, Kentucky and many other states. Ever get the feeling that the criminalization of marijuana is about as effective as trying to push a rope up an icy hill?

[Guest]

With regards to the person who would have liked to be at Woodstock. Actually the action was in the little town of Bethel outside of Woodstock and it was on farmers field. The field was totally mud, the attendee's were covered with mud, most high and I seriously doubt if they ever remembered where they had been or what they had heard. There was great music playing to a drugged out crowd. Even today if you go to Woodstock on the weekends there are old hippies in the little square and the little booths sell pot pipes and other drug paraphernalia. It is also a town of some wealth with a lot of the citizens spending weekends up from New York City. In fact on Sunday you can watch the bus from NYC pick up the old hippies as they go back to the City.

Yeah, that was me. I was attempting to send you all on a trip into the past and add some humor to it...guess I was to tired to succeed. I have seen the movie a half dozen times...it looks like it would have been great for a while...but getting home would have really been awful.

The Woodstock I would like to visit now is in Illinois...where they filmed Groundhog Day with Bill Murray.

[Guest]

Yeah, that was me. I was attempting to send you all on a trip into the past and add some humor to it...guess I was to tired to succeed. I have seen the movie a half dozen times...it looks like it would have been great for a while...but getting home would have really been awful.

The Woodstock I would like to visit now is in Illinois...where they filmed Groundhog Day with Bill Murray.

Buckeye, I enjoyed your trip into the past. Even though I'm a Canadian I lived in California during the 1960s. It was truly a fun time with GREAT music.

[Guest]

Yeah, that was me. I was attempting to send you all on a trip into the past and add some humor to it...guess I was to tired to succeed. I have seen the movie a half dozen times...it looks like it would have been great for a while...but getting home would have really been awful.

The Woodstock I would like to visit now is in Illinois...where they filmed Groundhog Day with Bill Murray.

You gave me a good laugh as I went down memory lane.
Thanks for the trip! :beer3::coolsmiley::pepper2:

[Guest]

As the saying goes, "if you can remember Woodstock, then you weren't there".

[Guest]

You know, don't know about you, but 90 percent of Americans break laws all the time in their own bedrooms. Do you know the local laws about sex in so many places state some normal sexual acts are illegal? And for what, the religious right, which, in case you don't know, are sometimes the biggest breakers of these laws? I agree with you, that, if we don't agree with a law, we have two choices, but, when the laws are so archaic, sometimes, just have to say forget it. And if you have never broken a law, then by all means, cast the first stone.
And who is to say when a law is "archaic?" Are the laws regarding euthanasia archaic? What about the laws on indecent exposure? How about the laws on animal cruelty? And the list goes on.....

You and I can break any law we want, as long as we are ready to endure the result. If you and I aren't ready, and the feeling is "it's okay to break THIS law" without penalty because we in our enlightened status think it's archaic despite the current validity," that's no different than the kid who eats all the cookies in the cookie jar because s/he wants to, despite being told to leave them alone.

Either change the law according to our system of government (if the majority goes along with the desire) or accept the consequences.

It's not a matter of "casting the first stone,' but rather being realistic. Democracy or anarchy - take your pick. The choice really is that simple.

[Guest]

I was there and I do remember it. The traffic was a disaster and it was a circus of people out of control. I lived nearby.

[Guest]

And who is to say when a law is "archaic?" Are the laws regarding euthanasia archaic? What about the laws on indecent exposure? How about the laws on animal cruelty? And the list goes on.....

You and I can break any law we want, as long as we are ready to endure the result. If you and I aren't ready, and the feeling is "it's okay to break THIS law" without penalty because we in our enlightened status think it's archaic despite the current validity," that's no different than the kid who eats all the cookies in the cookie jar because s/he wants to, despite being told to leave them alone.

Either change the law according to our system of government (if the majority goes along with the desire) or accept the consequences.

It's not a matter of "casting the first stone,' but rather being realistic. Democracy or anarchy - take your pick. The choice really is that simple. You keep rehashing the point about accepting the consequences. Nobody is talking about that point, our topic was about the legalization, what thoughts were on that. I realize we have to pay consequences if we choose to break laws. But, if you are going to keep talking about laws, come up with a better analogy than a kid sticking his hand in a cookie jar. That isn't a law, that's a rule of the household, by parents or guardians. Huge difference.

[Guest]

I would like to thank everyone who responded and partiicpated in this string of notes. Whether I am right or wrong is not important as it has been in my opinion , a good exchange of ideas and feelings. I found I started to repeat myself so will go on to other things. I do feel the last note was insensitive to the poor suffering children with handicaps which they did not sign up for when they were born.

Which note was that?

[Guest]

You keep rehashing the point about accepting the consequences. Nobody is talking about that point, our topic was about the legalization, what thoughts were on that. I realize we have to pay consequences if we choose to break laws. But, if you are going to keep talking about laws, come up with a better analogy than a kid sticking his hand in a cookie jar. That isn't a law, that's a rule of the household, by parents or guardians. Huge difference.
Analogies - they still demonstrate the point.

Okay - Legalizing pot as a recreational substance is a bad idea - just adds another mind-bending substance of unknown long-term effect into the market for no reason other than to have another mind-bending substance in the market - tough to control and there will still be criminals peddling it to kids who don't know any better - health care costs associated with expanded access to pot may or may not be worse than tobacco or booze, and common sense says they need quantification up front. We complain when the department store sells toys which may harm kids, but public sale of pot would be okay?

Okay - Legalizing pot for medicinal purposes may be a reasonable idea, but the conventional medical establishment needs to present the pros-and-cons of that in the same way any other treatment or medicine is - substantive research backed by quantifiable results to include defined regimens establishing the when and how to dispense. Anything less is folly.

How's that?

[Guest]

And who is to say when a law is "archaic?" Are the laws regarding euthanasia archaic? What about the laws on indecent exposure? How about the laws on animal cruelty? And the list goes on.....

You and I can break any law we want, as long as we are ready to endure the result. If you and I aren't ready, and the feeling is "it's okay to break THIS law" without penalty because we in our enlightened status think it's archaic despite the current validity," that's no different than the kid who eats all the cookies in the cookie jar because s/he wants to, despite being told to leave them alone.

Either change the law according to our system of government (if the majority goes along with the desire) or accept the consequences.

It's not a matter of "casting the first stone,' but rather being realistic. Democracy or anarchy - take your pick. The choice really is that simple.

this will probably work for Mr.Midnight:beer3::agree::coolsmiley::loco:

[Guest]

Steve Z I could not agree with you more..Great definition of the problem..