Can't help
 

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

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.

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

[QUOTE=Yoda;191678]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."

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.

Your Right
 

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.

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.

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.

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:

Thanks
 

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.

This discussion...
 

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?

Oh the fun of it!
 

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?;)

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:

Absolutely.
Peace and Love. :0000000000luvmyhors