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.

Originally Posted by rshoffer

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

Originally Posted by SteveZ

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.

Originally Posted by rshoffer

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."

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.

Originally Posted by REH7380

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.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

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.

Originally Posted by REH7380

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?

Originally Posted by REH7380

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.

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........

Originally Posted by Barefoot

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..

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.

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

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

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.