What happens to confiscated pot ...

[Tsa`ah]

My kid had asked my why someone would think brownies were killing them ... and why they would bake them in a pot.

So she showed me this on youtube.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hrZLc9lqQM0

I remember it from earlier in the year on Kimmel. I can't find the original story of the cop's explanation but in a nutshell he tried to sell the media a bullshit story ...

He "forgot" to log it as evidence as he went directly home after his shift and "left" the pot in the cabinet when he left for his next shift. His wife, now knowing what it was, "accidentally" used it to make brownies.

Since then the cop was allowed to resign without charges ... cop justice.

[Sean of the Thread]

I read last week that now they're being charged.

EX-COP, WIFE CHARGED AFTER INFAMOUS POT BROWNIE CALL
by M.L. Elrick, Free Press Staff Writer, (Source:Detroit Free Press)

"They may have committed a high crime, but a former Dearborn cop and his wife are only going to be charged with a misdemeanor for allegedly smoking pot in Dearborn Heights.

Edward Sanchez, 30, and his wife, Stacy, 27, are expected to turn themselves in for arraignment on one charge each of using marijuana, according assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Maria Miller. "

[Aenstaas]

A coworker of mine just told me that her boyfriend, a cop, was called to a local mini mart when the owner found a small bag on the floor next to the slurpy machine (yes I made up that detail). He then gave the pot to my coworker at her request. It probably happens a lot more then we would like to admit.

[Sean of the Thread]

I found a bag of pot on top of a toilet at a USF game. Went to the first deputy I saw to give it to him and he was like "what the fuck do you want me to do with it?" Then stuck it in his pocket whilst the other deputies with him laughed.

[Anebriated]

I found a bag of pot, and did not report it to the authorities.

[Jorddyn]

I think it's a good thing that we're becoming more lax in attitude toward the plant that's been vilified for no good reason for the last century.

Now, to decriminalize...

[Sean of the Thread]

Cut your hair hippies.

[Hips]

We found a bag of pot at our house in Maine that we rent out, I tried to post a picture of it here on the PC, and was reprimanded by Miss X. :(

[Sean of the Thread]

Mustn't promote drug culture to our youngin's on the PC!

[Anebriated]

I think it's a good thing that we're becoming more lax in attitude toward the plant that's been vilified for no good reason for the last century.

Now, to decriminalize...


QFT

[Skeeter]

Keep smoking end up like this guy

http://www.tri-sport.com/merchant/1058/images/site/Jeff%20Spicoli%20-%20Chris%20sm.jpg

[Jorddyn]

Keep smoking end up like this guy


And next come the quotes from "Reefer Madness"? :)

[CrystalTears]

And next come the quotes from "Reefer Madness"? :)
Do your children enjoy jazz music? For I am here to tell you that Cab Calloway, Dizzy Gillespie, Duke Ellington, and the whole weed-blowing ginger-colored lot are merely masquerading as musicians and are, in fact, agents of evil. Reefer slows down the smoker's sense of time, allowing him to squeeze in unnecessary grace notes, giving this voodoo music the power to hypnotize white women into indulging in acts of unspeakable degradation.

[Jayvn]

I've never found a bag of pot :( however.. back at bragg I stopped at the mailbox one time to find a shopette bag with a 5 pack(6 pack missing one) of cold coronas with the receipt from probably 15 minutes prior.. I didn't pass up my good fortune on that one. Although I'd still like some kind of explanation.

[Jorddyn]

Do your children enjoy jazz music? For I am here to tell you that Cab Calloway, Dizzy Gillespie, Duke Ellington, and the whole weed-blowing ginger-colored lot are merely masquerading as musicians and are, in fact, agents of evil. Reefer slows down the smoker's sense of time, allowing him to squeeze in unnecessary grace notes, giving this voodoo music the power to hypnotize white women into indulging in acts of unspeakable degradation.

I now have plans for the weekend.

[Skeeter]

CT just admitted she loves sexorz in teh butts

[CrystalTears]

You got that from me quoting a movie, eh?

Besides... I don't like jazz. :tongue:

[Sean of the Thread]

Isn't your husbands name Anal Angus?

[Clove]

Creeping like a communist, it's knocking at our doors
Turning all our children into hooligans and whores
Voraciously devouring the way things are today
Savagely deflowering the good ol' U.S.A.
It's Reefer Madness, Reefer Madness
(Reefer Madness, Reefer Madness)
Oh so mad!

[Sean]

CTs not white anyway. Like everyone else the "weed-blowing ginger-colored lot" don't care for Cubans.

[Skeeter]

Cubans <3 buttsecks

[Sean of the Thread]

Eww Cubans have hairy assholes.

[Stanley Burrell]

I think it's a good thing that we're becoming more lax in attitude toward the plant that's been vilified for no good reason for the last century.

Now, to decriminalize...

Seriously, this sure does sound exactly like a mellow "it's just like having a drink" experience that everyone who smokes pot will, obviously, have.

[CrystalTears]

Cubans <3 buttsecks
Life isn't about sex. Life is about children and passion.
And spirit.
It's not about cock and ass and tits and butthole pleasures.
It's not about this rusty trombone and dirty Sanchez.
And Cincinnati bowtie.
And your pussy juice cocktail and this shit-stained balls....

[Jorddyn]

Seriously, this sure does sound exactly like a mellow "it's just like having a drink" experience that everyone who smokes pot will, obviously, have.

It isn't about the experience. It's about the ridiculousness of criminalizing a plant. It's about legislating what people do with/to their own body. It's stupid.

Yes, some people have adverse reactions to pot. If you have an adverse reaction, avoid it. If you don't then avoid it, you deserve what you get. People also have adverse reactions to strawberries, peanuts, bananas, and soybeans. How stupid would it be to criminalize those plants?

People can huff spray paint and get high. How stupid would it be to criminalize spray paint?

Unless I'm completely missing the point of your post, in which case, how stupid am I?

[Sean of the Thread]

idk dirty sanchez is always a party favorite.

[Stanley Burrell]

Never give up Skeet.

I'm sure she'll give it up, to you (of course) so long as pay for her raft fare. Bring a half-broken guitar and lube up a Cuban (cigar) for foreplay.

What else, what else? Oh:

Dress up like Fidel Castro while Manuel video tapes scene III of "El Dick-tator."

Switch teh buttsecks positions everytime border patrol yells at you on the loudspeaker too. Hop over the barbed-wire fences for the S&M closing scene popshot only.

[Skeeter]

Someone already took CTs black cherry.

[Stanley Burrell]

Yes, some people have adverse reactions to pot. If you have an adverse reaction, avoid it. If you don't then avoid it, you deserve what you get.

The thing is that this man has THC-induced schizophrenia. It (cannabis) is classified as a hallucinogen for a damn good reason. This guy would and will think you are after him and therefor, especially as a Police officer, has a right to defend himself from your being a Neptunian Angel of Death.

The psychoactive effects of marijuana being legalized on a group of kids who will take pulls just as easily as they would off of a Big Tobacco stogie scares the shit out of me. I don't believe it's an issue, Jorddyn, of "well, if you don't like it, avoid it" when, i.e., some trenchcoat-adorned 16 year old wanting to fit in has a harmless bout of stage III dementia and shoots up your family because he/she fears for their life with the element of delusional paranoia.

I am well aware of the early political tirades of literally what I think were either one or two people in the 1920s that illegalized pot well before, say, um, 'Nam? -- The thing is that one should, I feel, need to understand how many people were smoking pot back then versus how many people would in a 21st century America with an instant product commercialization + gratification environment; one whose surroundings, I believe, will have such a hypothetical lawless emphasis (socially, economically, Teleologically, malevolently, etc.) amounts of extra incentive, now, to experiment and will have an "adverse reaction" and will hurt others (and themselves.)

And I absolutely support prescribed medical marijuana treatment without a stigma-attached triplicate package for those afflicted with glaucoma, cancer, perhaps even severe depression. I don't have any problem with people smoking it either. I do have a problem (my only issue with the ganj', at that) like I've said, with the idea of how many people would be affected dangerously and immanently by a hypothetical legalization.

[Celephais]

Wow... Stan you convinced me. I never had a problem with pot... don't smoke it, but didn't think it was right to keep it illegal, but you make a very very valid point.

[Bobmuhthol]

Timothy Leary broke the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

[Jorddyn]

Wow... Stan you convinced me. I never had a problem with pot... don't smoke it, but didn't think it was right to keep it illegal, but you make a very very valid point.

I'll respond more at length later, but if you seriously think that it should be kept illegal due to his post, then you may want to consider joining a prohibition league due to the rate of crimes that are committed under the influence of alcohol and the number of alcohol related deaths on an annual basis.

[Celephais]

I don't care enough about either way to join a stupid league. Eh, actually I'm more of the opinion +21 it should be legal... although I think it should be +18 for alcohol (if alcohol gets it then pot can get it). In my experience potheads are much more peaceful than drunks, but I've seen more freakouts over weed than booze.

In reality I don't really care what the legality of it is.

[Some Rogue]

I'll respond more at length later, but if you seriously think that it should be kept illegal due to his post, then you may want to consider joining a prohibition league due to the rate of crimes that are committed under the influence of alcohol and the number of alcohol related deaths on an annual basis.

Except we're not talking about choosing which one to make legal and which one to make illegal. I don't have any numbers in front of me but I bet alcohol would beat out some of the harder drugs too. Does that mean we make those legal too?

[Clove]

Because Holland is a cesspool of lawlessness....

[Jorddyn]

Except we're not talking about choosing which one to make legal and which one to make illegal. I don't have any numbers in front of me but I bet alcohol would beat out some of the harder drugs too. Does that mean we make those legal too?

You wouldn't like my answer.

[Some Rogue]

Hahaha....personally I don't have a problem with pot being legal. Hell, I'd take it as legal over alcohol. The harder drugs I would have a problem with.

[Methais]

i.e., some trenchcoat-adorned 16 year old wanting to fit in has a harmless bout of stage III dementia and shoots up your family because he/she fears for their life with the element of delusional paranoia.

:rofl:

[LazyBard]

And I absolutely support prescribed medical marijuana treatment without a stigma-attached triplicate package for those afflicted with glaucoma, cancer, perhaps even severe depression. I don't have any problem with people smoking it either. I do have a problem (my only issue with the ganj', at that) like I've said, with the idea of how many people would be affected dangerously and immanently by a hypothetical legalization.



I can only say sharp as a marble. And I use to wonder why people have you on ignore

[Jorddyn]

I have numerous issues with marijuana being illegal, not the least of which is it's a freaking plant.

First and foremost, I believe your body is your body. If you want to smoke marijuana, snort cocaine, shoot heroin, have at it. As for the crime that is known to come from this - theft, assault, child abuse/neglect - we already have laws for those.

Second, we've proven that prohibition doesn't work. We spend billions of dollars incarcerating those who produce, distribute, carry, and consume drugs on an annual basis, and I honestly don't give a damn if they do any of those. I feel that we could find better uses of our tax dollars than locking someone up who decided to get high on a Friday night.

Third (kind of second and a half), I believe that legalization would actually reduce crime. After prohibition ended, the organizations which had provided alcohol while it was illegal lost one of their largest reasons for existing. Once legal distribution chains are in place, where's the draw for dealing? If I can buy pot legally at the corner store for $50, I'm going to do that rather than find some shady person selling something unregulated on a street corner for 20% less. There'd be less fighting between sects/gangs/groups and less innocent bystanders killed. (Note: Figures are completely made up, and only for demonstration purposes. Additionally, I have no studies backing up my theory, which is why I said "I believe".)

Fourth, the percentage of people who would suffer insta-psychosis from marijuana use is extremely small. The percentage who would choose to use, use, and then go on a murderous rampage as described in Stan's post would be even smaller.

Fifth and finally, we have such an arbitrary line on what is legal and what is not. Caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are all perfectly legal to obtain and consume.

I don't expect to change your mind, Stan, but I find it ridiculous that I am not legally allowed to go out and buy marijuana if I want because "think of the children" or "it is evil" or "one guy in a thousand might possibly go nutso, and one in a million of those might kill a family."

Jorddyn

[Latrinsorm]

Fourth, the percentage of people who would suffer insta-psychosis from marijuana use is extremely small.What about the percentage that would suffer from post-use psychosis?

[Sean of the Thread]

Is there such a thing?

[Stanley Burrell]

I can only say sharp as a marble. And I use to wonder why people have you on ignore

Way to prove a point, my friend.

[Clove]

Is there such a thing?

Of course there is. They're usually the ones behind all the exploding cars.

[TheEschaton]

I have numerous issues with marijuana being illegal, not the least of which is it's a freaking plant.

First and foremost, I believe your body is your body. If you want to smoke marijuana, snort cocaine, shoot heroin, have at it. As for the crime that is known to come from this - theft, assault, child abuse/neglect - we already have laws for those.

Second, we've proven that prohibition doesn't work. We spend billions of dollars incarcerating those who produce, distribute, carry, and consume drugs on an annual basis, and I honestly don't give a damn if they do any of those. I feel that we could find better uses of our tax dollars than locking someone up who decided to get high on a Friday night.

Third (kind of second and a half), I believe that legalization would actually reduce crime. After prohibition ended, the organizations which had provided alcohol while it was illegal lost one of their largest reasons for existing. Once legal distribution chains are in place, where's the draw for dealing? If I can buy pot legally at the corner store for $50, I'm going to do that rather than find some shady person selling something unregulated on a street corner for 20% less. There'd be less fighting between sects/gangs/groups and less innocent bystanders killed. (Note: Figures are completely made up, and only for demonstration purposes. Additionally, I have no studies backing up my theory, which is why I said "I believe".)

Fourth, the percentage of people who would suffer insta-psychosis from marijuana use is extremely small. The percentage who would choose to use, use, and then go on a murderous rampage as described in Stan's post would be even smaller.

Fifth and finally, we have such an arbitrary line on what is legal and what is not. Caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are all perfectly legal to obtain and consume.

I don't expect to change your mind, Stan, but I find it ridiculous that I am not legally allowed to go out and buy marijuana if I want because "think of the children" or "it is evil" or "one guy in a thousand might possibly go nutso, and one in a million of those might kill a family."

Jorddyn

I've had this argument before, and despite being someone who used to smoke every day, no one ever listens to my logic, mainly because they're being greedy and self-centered and just want to smoke their lives away. But, here we go. I'll address your points one by one.

One: Part of the social contract (cf Rousseau) is giving up some modicum of personal rights, for the rights and well-being of society. You argue that we already have laws for the crimes people commit in the furtherance of their habit, you ignore that these crimes are increased by habitual drug use. Even legal things are illegal when you use them in certain ways. You cannot drink and drive, even if you don't kill anyone. Furthermore, the reason these crimes are punished FURTHER is because it indicates a reckless choice by the person who did it, to put them in a state where they are more susceptible to commit crimes. To murder someone, theoretically, involves such depravity that most people in society don't reach that threshold, ever. The use of drugs (a reckless choice, especially knowing the effects) lowers that threshold so considerably that to take the choice to use the drug itself is criminal.

Two: I don't think the criminal justice system works in term of users. There should be more focus on drug rehab, then incarceration, and circumstance and the person's habit should be taken into account, and penalties should be as low as traffic violations (IE, ticket and a fine). I know in NY, that IS the case in many situations. It's not a question of prohibition not working, it's a question of how it can work.

Three: Nothing that has ever come under gov't regulation hasn't gone up in price. It's guaranteed that prices'll rise due to taxes, and rampant capitalism. That means there'd still be incentive for dealers, and possibly even more profit, as they can raise prices and probably still be lower than the gov't. Crime would rise, mainly because the effects of these drugs (less so for pot, more so for heroin and other hard drugs) LESSEN ONE'S ABILITY TO THINK RATIONALLY. They are more likely to make poor decisions. Furthermore, this'll be even more true under a legal standard, as advancements in potency would then be legal and make the supply of drugs more potent in general.

Fourth, the potency argument speaks to chances of insta-psychosis. Frankly, I think most people for legalization are usually people who smoke pretty weak, schwag weed. Those of us who smoked high end bud and did other drugs, can tell you other stories. I stopped doing acid 10 years ago, and I still have flashbacks and breaks (IE, spacing out).

Fifth: I certainly agree. I definitely think alcohol is far more dangerous, but they had a better lobby. I think it needs far more regulation, personally. The thing with alcohol (vs. other drugs) is that they don't stay in your body. Alcohol is completely flushed out of your system in a day - drugs, like pot, often build up in your brain. And THC addled brains are tres bad. Furthermroe, drugs that have psychotropic effects need to be especially regulated and criminalized - this is why things like absinthe are illegal, because they fuck up your mind.

[Stanley Burrell]

I don't expect to change your mind, Stan, but I find it ridiculous that I am not legally allowed to go out and buy marijuana if I want because "think of the children" or "it is evil" or "one guy in a thousand might possibly go nutso, and one in a million of those might kill a family."

I am pretty certain there are other disturbing percentages, other than a higher marijuana-induced murder rate due to a now (hypothetical) cracked out consumption ratio.

I don't think marijuana is evil. I do think the concept of kids starting to hit their brains with THC as a peer pressure substitute for nicotine is bad. I still don't know about evil, though.

Been a long day, so I'm gonna bust two nutshell statements with the subject still being weed and not CT's posterior:

- Amsterdam sure as fuck isn't America.

- We're not talking about the hypothetical legalization of alcohol.

[Gan]

I have numerous issues with marijuana being illegal, not the least of which is it's a freaking plant.

So is the coca plant.

So are opium poppies.

Your point?

[TheEschaton]

She's already said she believes in the legalization of all drugs, Gan. :P How idiotic is that?

[Stanley Burrell]

She's already said she believes in the legalization of all drugs, Gan. :P How idiotic is that?

Props.

[Warriorbird]

It won't be legalized. The War on Drugs is an industry and a lot of people have a vested interest in it continuing. Removing stupid marijuana possession cases would do a lot to reduce the number of inmates in America, lower court/police workloads, and completely eliminate any remaining hint of racial bias in sentencing however (other than people being more likely to get the death penalty rather than life in prison if they're black).

[Gan]

She's already said she believes in the legalization of all drugs, Gan. :P How idiotic is that?

Someone go outside and check the planetary alignment. I think I'm in agreement with TheE.

:spaz:

[Stanley Burrell]

Someone go outside and check the planetary alignment. I think I'm in agreement with TheE.

:spaz:

With the jist or the jest? Or both?

[Latrinsorm]

Is there such a thing?As it turns out, ya.

[Jorddyn]

So is the coca plant.

So are opium poppies.

Your point?


So let people chomp on/smoke coca leaves or poppy flowers. They're plants.

And yes, I am for legalization across the board, but specifically find the prohibition of marijuana ridiculous.

[Jorddyn]

I'll attempt to only snip where I have a point to make. I am not ignoring other arguments.


I've had this argument before, and despite being someone who used to smoke every day, no one ever listens to my logic, mainly because they're being greedy and self-centered and just want to smoke their lives away. But, here we go. I'll address your points one by one.

I haven't smoked in a couple years. Before that it was a couple years. I don't want to smoke my life away, but I'd love to be able to smoke every once in a while if I felt like it. I don't see how it is right to prohibit a behavior to me because of how someone else might handle legalization.


Furthermore, the reason these crimes are punished FURTHER is because it indicates a reckless choice by the person who did it, to put them in a state where they are more susceptible to commit crimes.

My point is that breaking and entering is illegal. If you want to make "breaking and entering while stoned" more illegal, so to speak, have at it. But making pot illegal because someone may misuse and break and enter still seems ridiculous to me.


To murder someone, theoretically, involves such depravity that most people in society don't reach that threshold, ever. The use of drugs (a reckless choice, especially knowing the effects) lowers that threshold so considerably that to take the choice to use the drug itself is criminal.

I've committed crimes in my life, but I've never been more inclined to commit a crime (other than possession and use - is use a crime, or is it just possession?) while stoned. I would wager a good percentage of users could be expected to act just as responsibly.


Two: I don't think the criminal justice system works in term of users. There should be more focus on drug rehab,

Fully agreed.


then incarceration, and circumstance and the person's habit should be taken into account, and penalties should be as low as traffic violations (IE, ticket and a fine). I know in NY, that IS the case in many situations. It's not a question of prohibition not working, it's a question of how it can work.

The problem is when there is a fine for possession, production/selling is still illegal, and you haven't removed the need for an illegal distribution system.


Three: Nothing that has ever come under gov't regulation hasn't gone up in price.

How often do we decriminalize something, though? Most often, the governement just decides to regulate something that was previously free market. Additionally, those producing the drug would no longer be taking a large risk, removing the "this is illegal" premium from the price.


It's guaranteed that prices'll rise due to taxes, and rampant capitalism. That means there'd still be incentive for dealers, and possibly even more profit, as they can raise prices and probably still be lower than the gov't. Crime would rise, mainly because the effects of these drugs (less so for pot, more so for heroin and other hard drugs) LESSEN ONE'S ABILITY TO THINK RATIONALLY. They are more likely to make poor decisions.

I don't see a huge black market on alcohol. It definitely lessens one's ability to think rationally, and can definitely be produced/sold cheaper without the taxes and regulation. It still doesn't happen, in large part because the vast majority of users use responsibly. I can foresee, after an initial "WEE, IT'S LEGAL!" fest, a similar thing happening with marijuana.


Those of us who smoked high end bud and did other drugs, can tell you other stories.

I can tell you that I like my weak weed, just like I like my beer instead of everclear. I had a nasty high on what was reported to be ridiculously good weed once while out visiting friends out of state. As an adult who is responsible for my own decisions, I decided and did not smoke again until I was home and where I could feel comfortable with what I was being supplied.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind with my arguments, but I believe we should stop restricting rights (you can't smoke pot) and advocate responsibilities (don't be a dumbass while doing it). I believe we should stop legislating for the crack heads (war on drugs), murderers (gun laws), and assholes (hate crimes), and start legislating to the vast majority of society who just want to lead a good life. Plus, then we can use jail space for those who are truly committing crimes that harm others.

That's my buck o' two.

[Jorddyn]

She's already said she believes in the legalization of all drugs, Gan. :P How idiotic is that?

I'm an intelligent person. You're an intelligent person. I'd like to think we could have this conversation without insults.

[Gan]

So let people chomp on/smoke coca leaves or poppy flowers. They're plants.

And yes, I am for legalization across the board, but specifically find the prohibition of marijuana ridiculous.

If the people would not have to be around other people, where their fucked up actions/reactions wouldnt affect others, then sure - smoke, chomp, chew whatever away.

But when you smoke, take, chew, drugs that alter your mind, then you expose me to your altered fucked up self while in control of a vehicle or a handgun, or anything else and I have a problem with it. So should you.

[Jorddyn]

If the people would not have to be around other people, where their fucked up actions/reactions wouldnt affect others, then sure - smoke, chomp, chew whatever away.

But when you smoke, take, chew, drugs that alter your mind, then you expose me to your altered fucked up self while in control of a vehicle or a handgun, or anything else and I have a problem with it. So should you.

I do. That's why it is covered by drunk driving and reckless endangerment (I believe they're called) laws.

[Artha]

But when you smoke, take, chew, drugs that alter your mind, then you expose me to your altered fucked up self while in control of a vehicle or a handgun, or anything else and I have a problem with it. So should you.

So what about alcohol? Getting drunk is far more debilitating than getting high, and I can go down to a bar or stop at a gas station and get drunk any time I want (except between 11:45/2:00 and 6:00/whenever bars open)

[Tsa`ah]

You can't use legal drugs in this argument ... that would be too logical.

[Gan]

So what about alcohol? Getting drunk is far more debilitating than getting high, and I can go down to a bar or stop at a gas station and get drunk any time I want (except between 11:45/2:00 and 6:00/whenever bars open)

Your quoting method sucks.

I just cant compare how alcohol affects the body in the same way that marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. affect the body. From simple things such as quantity required to ingest to duration of alteration once ingested, to the depth or degree of alteration symptomatic of ingestion, to the amount of harm the ingestion does to the body over short and long term use.

Perhaps you can, but I cant.

Thats like saying... guns kill people. And knives do too! Lets ban knives!

[Jorddyn]

Thats like saying... guns kill people. And knives do too! Lets ban knives!

Or maybe we should allow both in the hands of responsible adults, and instead criminalize the acts done with them....

:shrug:

Just a weird thought.

[Tsa`ah]

I just cant compare how alcohol affects the body in the same way that marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. affect the body. From simple things such as quantity required to ingest to duration of alteration once ingested, to the depth or degree of alteration symptomatic of ingestion, to the amount of harm the ingestion does to the body over short and long term use.

Perhaps you can, but I cant.

Thats like saying... guns kill people. And knives do too! Lets ban knives!

One can simply because effect and quantity vary from person to person. Alcohol is pint to ounce comparable to pot ... where as chemical dependency is only of relevance to the legal drug.

It's not like saying let's ban knives as well, it's saying why ban any of them.

[Gan]

Or maybe we should allow both in the hands of responsible adults, and instead criminalize the acts done with them....

:shrug:

Just a weird thought.

Define responsible adult. Is there a test? A magical age? This is where the concept of responsibility is lost on a free society that is by and large still immature.

When people stand up and take responsibility for their actions 99% of the time and quit seeking others to blame for their mistakes and inadequacies then I'll buy into that utopia.

Until then, keep drugs out of the hands of children and adults who behave like children. Just say no.

[Gan]

One can simply because effect and quantity vary from person to person. Alcohol is pint to ounce comparable to pot ... where as chemical dependency is only of relevance to the legal drug.

It's not like saying let's ban knives as well, it's saying why ban any of them.

Sadly, I could almost buy the argument for pot.

My question is how are you going to reduce the exposure to others who dont wish to take the drug (secondhand smoke?). Ban smoking in public? Ban all smoked forms? The pot/brownie sales would boom right along with fritos.

Bear in mind that I'm not completely versed in the effects of pot, short and long term, enough to argue against the merits of its legality. So I'm going to have to rely on those more informed (scientifically, not self-experimentation-ly). I never smoked it myself, wasnt much of a druggie at all unless you count drinking beer on the weekends in highschool/college. Now its a glass or two of rum and I'm mr. mellow and ready for bed. ;)

[Tsa`ah]

So you're for reinstating prohibition and the burning of all tobacco fields within US borders?

[Gan]

So you're for reinstating prohibition and the burning of all tobacco fields within US borders?

I think the limits we have on alcohol are enough in some cases.

And the tobacco fields could definately be used for other purposes. I'm not an advocate for smoking in any form.

Again, how do you propose to limit the exposure to unwilling persons if you legalize the smoking of pot?

[Celephais]

I think I can understand the line they've drawn... psychotropic drug vs stimulant (cigs) & depressant (booze+cigs). Although pot is all three, at least they've got some sort of line they can draw, however arbitrary it might be.

[Skeeter]

I'm going to borrow the rational Latrin argument here, but here goes...

I would think any rational person who has seen the direct results of hard core drug use would see the importance of NOT legalizing all drugs accross the board. The damage done to the person, family and friends is disturbing to say the least.

/end responsible

If you need an example I point you in the direction of Stanley and Backlash's posts.

/end Snarky

[TheEschaton]

Jorddyn's argument is scary. She says we shouldn't legislate hate crimes, saying we should allow people to be what they are.

That would be WELL AND FINE, if "what they are" didn't directly affect my health and safety. You smoking crack and living in my neighborhood, affects my health and safety, just as you drinking too much (and I've said, there needs to be more regulation - more ability to crack down on binge drinking), and just as you hating the color of my skin way too much.

The thing I don't understand about the libertarians is this: How can you possibly trust everyone to do the right thing and not make the selfish choices which'll negatively impact those around them?

Furthermore, you made some sort of specious argument that "OMG, the other laws already exist!!!!!!" I already explained it once, but I'll do it again. Specifically altering your mind to the point where you are too impaired to make rational, reasonable decisions, is a reckless behavior. Reckless behavior can and is legislated. You can be arrested for public drunkenness, you can be arrested for drunk driving, mainly because you are in such a state of intoxication that you are a menace to those around you.

Conversely, crimes committed under those circumstances DESERVE harsher punishments. If I'm completely sober, and accidently hit someone, I might get an involuntary vehicular manslaughter, which could get me up to 2 years in prison if a judge was feeling really harsh...more likely a suspended license and probation for a coupla years. If I'm drunk, and then make the stupid decision to drive, and hit some kid in the same circumstances, I should be charged with vehicular homicide, because I took the reckless choice to drink, which led to those sort of problems.

As for your argument about being the "responsible adult" and choosing the weak weed - you've got to be joking. For every one person under the legalized standard who responsibly smokes the weak weed which will just make them chill, you have ten who'll be smoking government grown hydroponic weed so they can trip their balls off. Just like how many people choose not to drink 2 beers in a night when they go out, they choose to drink 10. Or maybe 5 Jager bombs. Or 5 car bombs. Lesson of the story: People don't act responsibly towards themselves, let alone other people.

[Tsa`ah]

My question is how are you going to reduce the exposure to others who dont wish to take the drug (secondhand smoke?). Ban smoking in public? Ban all smoked forms? The pot/brownie sales would boom right along with fritos.

As many states already do with public consumption, open container, and public intoxication laws.

Many areas are already banning smoking from public areas (which I'm completely for in regards to indoors) and not bothering to wait on state legislation to make up their minds.

I personally have no problem with people who wish to use so long as they don't bring harm to people directly in their company or children. I think someone burning one on their front porch should be slapped with public consumption/intoxication, etc. I think anyone using, dealing, buying within visual sight of a child or within a mile of school needs some prison time.

You should know my arguments on responsibility. I don't think much leniency should be given to anyone that decides to have a few drinks and then get behind the wheel.

Harder drugs I'm more weary of legalizing ... pot ... no real good reason it should be illegal outside of the real reason, taxation.


Bear in mind that I'm not completely versed in the effects of pot, short and long term, enough to argue against the merits of its legality. So I'm going to have to rely on those more informed (scientifically, not self-experimentation-ly). I never smoked it myself, wasnt much of a druggie at all unless you count drinking beer on the weekends in highschool/college. Now its a glass or two of rum and I'm mr. mellow and ready for bed. ;)

Well the radical conservatism that sprung early in the last century spawned all sorts of bullshit that really pervaded drug education into the 90s until qualified professions pointed out the bullshit of "gateway" and a myriad of other bogus claims.

[Warriorbird]

I don't presuppose everybody's going to act decently, Alok. I just think there's better things to do with the money/effort wasted. You're also carefully going after legalizing other things apart from marijuana. We allow people to do all sorts of things that make them more stupid. Why not this one?

[Gan]

If you need an example [of the ill effects of drugs] I point you in the direction of Stanley and Backlash's posts.
/end Snarky

:rofl: QFMFT This alone should scare off thousands if they were to be exposed to "why drugs R bad". hahahahahahahahaha

[Gan]

Jorddyn's argument is scary. She says we shouldn't legislate hate crimes, saying we should allow people to be what they are.

That would be WELL AND FINE, if "what they are" didn't directly affect my health and safety. You smoking crack and living in my neighborhood, affects my health and safety, just as you drinking too much (and I've said, there needs to be more regulation - more ability to crack down on binge drinking), and just as you hating the color of my skin way too much.

The thing I don't understand about the libertarians is this: How can you possibly trust everyone to do the right thing and not make the selfish choices which'll negatively impact those around them?

Furthermore, you made some sort of specious argument that "OMG, the other laws already exist!!!!!!" I already explained it once, but I'll do it again. Specifically altering your mind to the point where you are too impaired to make rational, reasonable decisions, is a reckless behavior. Reckless behavior can and is legislated. You can be arrested for public drunkenness, you can be arrested for drunk driving, mainly because you are in such a state of intoxication that you are a menace to those around you.

Conversely, crimes committed under those circumstances DESERVE harsher punishments. If I'm completely sober, and accidently hit someone, I might get an involuntary vehicular manslaughter, which could get me up to 2 years in prison if a judge was feeling really harsh...more likely a suspended license and probation for a coupla years. If I'm drunk, and then make the stupid decision to drive, and hit some kid in the same circumstances, I should be charged with vehicular homicide, because I took the reckless choice to drink, which led to those sort of problems.

As for your argument about being the "responsible adult" and choosing the weak weed - you've got to be joking. For every one person under the legalized standard who responsibly smokes the weak weed which will just make them chill, you have ten who'll be smoking government grown hydroponic weed so they can trip their balls off. Just like how many people choose not to drink 2 beers in a night when they go out, they choose to drink 10. Or maybe 5 Jager bombs. Or 5 car bombs. Lesson of the story: People don't act responsibly towards themselves, let alone other people.

:(

Either I'm suffering the ill effects of second hand schwag or TheE has a closet conservative stuck in him somewhere. Because I agree with everything in this post.

Maybe its just my eyesight this early in the morning. Excuse me while I go bang my head against a wall to clear my vision. :banghead:

[Gan]

:thread-shift:

So what are the effects of smoking pot? This would make a good cross comparison with drinking alcohol.

Let say we have a usage comparison where a person smokes 1 average size joint a week vs. a person who drinks 1 beer a week (is 1 joint comparable to 1 longneck or one glass of wine?)

Good effects?

weed: euphoric feeling

beer/wine: euphoric feeling, prevents hardening of arteries


Bad effects? (both short term and long term)

pot: memory loss, paranoia, loss of inhibition, hallucinogen

beer/wine: kills brain cells, kills liver, loss of inhibition, mood altering, can be a hallucinogin in gross amounts consumed, weight gain, hangover

[CrystalTears]

You forgot that pot gives you the munchies.

[Gan]

You forgot that pot gives you the munchies.

oh yea, thats both good and bad.

[Celephais]

:thread-shift:

So what are the effects of smoking pot? This would make a good cross comparison with drinking alcohol.

Let say we have a usage comparison where a person smokes 1 average size joint a week vs. a person who drinks 1 beer a week (is 1 joint comparable to 1 longneck or one glass of wine?)

Good effects?

weed: euphoric feeling

beer/wine: euphoric feeling, prevents hardening of arteries


Bad effects? (both short term and long term)

pot: memory loss, paranoia, loss of inhibition, hallucinogen

beer/wine: kills brain cells, kills liver, loss of inhibition, mood altering, can be a hallucinogin in gross amounts consumed, weight gain, hangover

Umm... you said 1 beer a week. 1 beer a week is not going to give you a hangover, or hallucinations... and don't forget
Pot: Kills lungs, weight gain (munchies :)), mood altering (is that bad?), can be a hallucinogin, cottonmouth.

I also enjoyed your wording... Pot, gives you memory loss... beer KILLS BRAIN LYKE ZOMBIEZ!!!!

[Gan]

Umm... you said 1 beer a week. 1 beer a week is not going to give you a hangover, or hallucinations... and don't forget
Pot: Kills lungs, weight gain (munchies :)), mood altering (is that bad?), can be a hallucinogin, cottonmouth.

I also enjoyed your wording... Pot, gives you memory loss... beer KILLS BRAIN LYKE ZOMBIEZ!!!!

LOL, I sound like a pot advocate with that phrasing eh? Ironic considering my earlier posts in this thread.

:lol:

[Sean of the Thread]

Who the hell can only drink 1 beer a week?

[Jorddyn]

Jorddyn's argument is scary. She says we shouldn't legislate hate crimes, saying we should allow people to be what they are.

I think you're misinterpreting. I'm saying a crime is a crime. I don't see the need to make killing someone because you hate their race against the law when killing someone is already against the law.



The thing I don't understand about the libertarians is this: How can you possibly trust everyone to do the right thing and not make the selfish choices which'll negatively impact those around them?

You can't, which is why you legislate the negative impacts, not the action that in and of itself isn't causing any impact on anyone but the person doing the act.


Furthermore, you made some sort of specious argument that "OMG, the other laws already exist!!!!!!"

I'm quite sure none of my posts contained "OMG" or multiple exclamation points.


I already explained it once, but I'll do it again. Specifically altering your mind to the point where you are too impaired to make rational, reasonable decisions, is a reckless behavior. Reckless behavior can and is legislated. You can be arrested for public drunkenness, you can be arrested for drunk driving, mainly because you are in such a state of intoxication that you are a menace to those around you.

I'm sure you can be arrested for stoned driving as well. Again, if I want to get stoned and sit in my condo and eat Doritos, who cares? Why should that be illegal, just because someone else might get in a car and drive after smoking pot? Legislation should punish those doing something harmful to others.


If I'm completely sober...I might get an involuntary vehicular manslaughter.... If I'm drunk...I should be charged with vehicular homicide, because I took the reckless choice to drink, which led to those sort of problems.

I'm ok with that.


As for your argument about being the "responsible adult" and choosing the weak weed - you've got to be joking. For every one person under the legalized standard who responsibly smokes the weak weed which will just make them chill, you have ten who'll be smoking government grown hydroponic weed so they can trip their balls off. Just like how many people choose not to drink 2 beers in a night when they go out, they choose to drink 10. Or maybe 5 Jager bombs. Or 5 car bombs. Lesson of the story: People don't act responsibly towards themselves, let alone other people.

Just like the vast majority of people who down shots of everclear instead of beer?

You just hear more about the idiots, and hear the idiots more. Think about it - you go out to a bar on a Friday night. There are typically a few people who insist on being loud, obnoxious, and stupid, but the vast majority are just there to have a couple, relax, and have a good time. And honestly, if you can drink 10 drinks and not be a total obnoxious ass, more power to you. But I believe it is up to you to know your limits, not up to government to regulate them away.

People don't always act responsibly. Punish their criminal actions, punish them more because they chose to drink/do drugs and then do something stupid, fine. But don't preemptively punish me when I've done nothing wrong.

I don't need the government to babysit me, to punish me for doing things that might lead to something else that might be harmful to someone else. I need them to punish those who do things that are harmful.

Would everyone be responsible with their use? Of course not, just like they're not with alcohol. Then again, we have some of the strictest alcohol laws in the western world, and one of the highest levels of abuse.

[Jorddyn]

I'm going to borrow the rational Latrin argument here, but here goes...
I would think any rational person who has seen the direct results of hard core drug use would see the importance of NOT legalizing all drugs accross the board. The damage done to the person, family and friends is disturbing to say the least.
/end responsible


The problem is that you're legislating for worst-case scenario (hard-core addict), and ignoring the black market that you're creating with making them illegal. Right now, we not only have the issue of drug addicts, we also have the issue of dealers/distributors who are willing to kill to preserve their tidy little profits. Making it legal would make dealing a far less lucrative trade.

[Latrinsorm]

Or maybe we should allow both in the hands of responsible adults, and instead criminalize the acts done with them....One of those plans is reactive, one is preventative. It's not so much "weird" to try and prevent crime as it is "sensible". What I don't get is that one of your fundamental claims is that alcohol and marijuana have similar effects to the point that different legislation is nonsensical: if that's true, what does it matter that you can only have one?

The immediate effects of alcohol and marijuana do not appear dissimilar: this does not make them interchangeable. It's easy to snicker and say "reefer madness much???" but that doesn't establish the scientific fact of the matter either way. The research is out there (and has been discussed on this forum), you're (Jorddyn & Tsa`ah) insulting yourself by making claims without investigating it.

[TheEschaton]

Alright, you're just drawing a different line, which I think is the wrong line. The impetus of the law should be to prevent people from making harmful decisions that impact the health and lives of those around them - not simply to punish acts once they've been committed.

You've seemed to have ceded that there can be poor decision making when high or drunk. If that is the case, the behavior that leads to committing more violent crime should be criminalized. The reason being excessively drunk is a crime is for this very reason.

The very reason alcohol is not illegal is because you can drink 1 drink and be unimpaired. Whereas 1 joint can and does impair you significantly. That's why how much you've had to drink has a scale of legality, and smoking does not.

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

I dunno. I think it depends on the drink and the container it's in. A little teeny glass of wine may not do anything, but a pilsner glass of tequila will. You can really abuse that whole "1 drink" thing. ;)

I don't believe in making all drugs legal. I don't have a problem with making pot legal, but certainly not all.

[Sean of the Thread]

While for the most part a joint is a joint as far as quantity.. a drink in terms of alcohol is a uniform 1 oz shot, 10-12 ounce beer or 12 oz wine.

Whereas taking a shot will effect you more quickly obviously.. sipping on a beer for 20-30 minutes will not.

[Jorddyn]

One of those plans is reactive, one is preventative. It's not so much "weird" to try and prevent crime as it is "sensible".

Trying to prevent crime is fine. Legislate all you want crimes against others. Legislate driving while intoxicated (in any way, shape or form). Trying to prevent crime by making something illegal that in and of itself causes no harm to anyone but the user is what I find distasteful.



The immediate effects of alcohol and marijuana do not appear dissimilar: this does not make them interchangeable.

They're not interchangeable, as anyone who has experienced the effects (and day-after effects) of both can tell you.


It's easy to snicker and say "reefer madness much???" but that doesn't establish the scientific fact of the matter either way. The research is out there (and has been discussed on this forum), you're (Jorddyn & Tsa`ah) insulting yourself by making claims without investigating it.

The reasons I've seen on this board for wanting it to be illegal are "it's bad for you" (as are a lot of legal things - your responsibility to choose what you want in your body), "it can make you psychotic" (it is your responsibility to avoid it if you are one of the very very few), and "it causes people to do illegal things". In response to the last, I certainly admit that drugs cause people to make bad choices. My question is, is the crime caused by drug use/abuse greater than or less than the crime caused by the current black market from producer all the way down to guy-on the corner? I'll be glad to read any research you have on this topic.

By the way, I've said all along that these are my opinions, and never claimed they were backed by scientific research. It isn't my intent to get into a google war, just to provide a different opinion on the subject.

[TheEschaton]

Trying to prevent crime by making something illegal that in and of itself causes no harm to anyone but the user is what I find distasteful.

And AGAIN, I reiterate, this is where you are wrong. Just using itself lowers immensely the threshold of what motivates a person to commit crime, and often violent crime in drug cases. This is preventative, just as criminalizing drunk driving without actually htiting someone is preventative. Society as a whole has deemed that the possible danger you are to society as a whole when you use this drug (or drink and drive) outweighs your personal right to use it.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

I've seriously not known where the fuck I was before on pot. Never ever has that occurred with alcohol and how do I say.. my consumption is HEAVY.

[Jorddyn]

Alright, you're just drawing a different line, which I think is the wrong line.

And that's what this whole discussion is about. Some people think alcohol should be illegal, some people think pot should remain illegal, some people think that no drugs should be illegal. I think there are valid arguments for all viewpoints.


You've seemed to have ceded that there can be poor decision making when high or drunk.

Definitely.


If that is the case, the behavior that leads to committing more violent crime should be criminalized. The reason being excessively drunk is a crime is for this very reason.

If I want to sit at home and drink a case of beer, puke, and pass out, I believe that is perfectly legal (though stupid). It's only when my actions begin to effect others that it becomes illegal.



The very reason alcohol is not illegal is because you can drink 1 drink and be unimpaired. Whereas 1 joint can and does impair you significantly. That's why how much you've had to drink has a scale of legality, and smoking does not.


1 drink does effect you, the effects are just barely noticeable. I'd argue that there's nothing saying you have to smoke an entire joint. You can take one hit off a pipe. You can stub a joint and save it for later. Or, if it's a Friday night and you won't be driving, have the whole thing and enjoy.

I think the only thing we really disagree on is - since pot leads to poor decision making, should we ban it and hopefully avoid the bad decisions? Your hope is that by making it illegal, we'll prevent most people from using, and therefore prevent the decisions. My hope would be that through education, we could teach people to be responsible with drugs and alcohol, and punish those who prove they cannot be when they do make bad decisions due to their use/abuse.

Do you suppose that there would be a large intersection of A) the people who still use even though drugs are illegal, make bad decisions, and get caught and B) the people who make bad decisions after using if drugs were legal? (Note: I have no proof of this either way, just a thought)

[Celephais]

I think saying you just harm yourself doesn't really work in America anyway, because of all the fucking safety nets we have set up to help out people down on their luck. If we're going to legalize it in such a way that says "You only harm yourself" I think using constitutes forfeiture of government aid.

[CrystalTears]

Your hope is that by making it illegal, we'll prevent most people from using, and therefore prevent the decisions.
The people who use it now probably don't care that it's illegal, or are willing to be less obvious about it in order to enjoy it. I don't think there's this large group of people waiting for it to be legal in order to use it. I'm not, anyway. I'm sure I can score some quite easily if I wanted to.

[Sean of the Thread]

1 drink does NOT effect me. That's the thing about alcohol that makes it so easily legal. Someone's sobriety is solely their own... know what your threshold is. Not so with mary jane.

A hit off a bong or smoking a joint.. will adversely effect you and people around you. Thus making almost impossible to make legal without restricting use to your home.

[Sean of the Thread]

Good point to mention that I see/smell more people smoking pot on the roads whilst driving then drinking.

[Methais]

If the people would not have to be around other people, where their fucked up actions/reactions wouldnt affect others, then sure - smoke, chomp, chew whatever away.

But when you smoke, take, chew, drugs that alter your mind, then you expose me to your altered fucked up self while in control of a vehicle or a handgun, or anything else and I have a problem with it. So should you.

I'm a much more reckless driver when I'm sober than when I'm stoned.

[Latrinsorm]

It isn't my intent to get into a google war, just to provide a different opinion on the subject.When did having an informed opinion become a bad thing?
I'll be glad to read any research you have on this topic.I haven't looked into it. As far as this discussion goes, I'm not concerned with the people all the way into felonious behavior. I'm concerned with the people who refuse to investigate the impact of their "harmless" recreational activity (perhaps because it's "just their opinion").
"it can make you psychotic" (it is your responsibility to avoid it if you are one of the very very few),Everyone's risk of developing psychosis is heightened by using marijuana. I'm not sure how exactly a person is supposed to predict whether they'll develop psychosis with or without the use of marijuana, so unless Jesus Christ is toking "responsibility" doesn't factor in. We're not just talking about someone freaking out while high, we're talking about lifelong health consequences.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Sean2
1 drink does NOT effect me. That's the thing about alcohol that makes it so easily legal. Someone's sobriety is solely their own... know what your threshold is. Not so with mary jane.

A hit off a bong or smoking a joint.. will adversely effect you and people around you. Thus making almost impossible to make legal without restricting use to your home.

You may not notice the effects of 1 drink but it def. effects your BAC. Not that I'm proud to say it but I'm sure theres plenty of times (like most times I've left the bar) that while I wouldn't qualify as impaired (by either my definition of the multitude of field sobriety tests at check pts) but had a BAC over the legal limit.

[Sean of the Thread]

But that's my point.. I'm not impaired on one drink or even 6+. That's why they give field sobriety tests and use their judgment prior to any BAC assessment. The legal limit is really just a guideline. You're level of impairment is the key factor.

Whereas toking some hippie lettuce I'd definitely be impaired.

[Jorddyn]

I think saying you just harm yourself doesn't really work in America anyway, because of all the fucking safety nets we have set up to help out people down on their luck. If we're going to legalize it in such a way that says "You only harm yourself" I think using constitutes forfeiture of government aid.

So long as we add to things that forfeit your government aid:

Dropping out of school
Being overweight
Smoking
Drinking too much
Bungee jumping (might break your back and be disabled!)
Quitting a job without having another one lined up
Having children without having a $250k bond set up to raise them (hey, you never know what will happen!)

And so on and so forth.

[Jorddyn]

The people who use it now probably don't care that it's illegal, or are willing to be less obvious about it in order to enjoy it. I don't think there's this large group of people waiting for it to be legal in order to use it. I'm not, anyway. I'm sure I can score some quite easily if I wanted to.

So could I, but I choose not to, even though my boss and my parents would both probably laugh if I got arrested for possession, and the only one "harmed" by it would be my cat.

[Jorddyn]

Everyone's risk of developing psychosis is heightened by using marijuana. I'm not sure how exactly a person is supposed to predict whether they'll develop psychosis with or without the use of marijuana, so unless Jesus Christ is toking "responsibility" doesn't factor in. We're not just talking about someone freaking out while high, we're talking about lifelong health consequences.

I've seen studies that show a correlation between marijuana use and psychosis, not a causal relationship. Again, if you know of one showing a causal relationship, I'd be more than happy to read.

[Anebriated]

Legalize it and then tax it. Gov't spends around $17billion directly and around $50 billion indirectly on the war on drugs yearly. Youll be saving money that can be put towards better things like edumacation or keeping those pesky boarder jumpers in their own country and making money from the taxes.

[Celephais]

So long as we add to things that forfeit your government aid:

Dropping out of school
Being overweight
Smoking
Drinking too much
Bungee jumping (might break your back and be disabled!)
Quitting a job without having another one lined up
Having children without having a $250k bond set up to raise them (hey, you never know what will happen!)

And so on and so forth.
Actually I'm fine with all of that... but that's not the point, the point is that doing drugs is something you do that can make you a burden on society.

Dropping out of school is "not" doing something.
Being overweight has way too many factors to call your fault.
Smoking I agree, fuck them if they smoke.
Drinking too much, they claim it's a disease, but if you drink away your health, fuck em too.
Bungee jumping... yeah if you hurt yourself here F' em.
Quitting - again not doing something
Children - I'm all for license to breed.

Do you honestly think it's reasonable to say "Well lets make pot legal, and anyone who throws away their lives to be a burnt out pot head the good working people who 'are responsible w/ recreational drugs' can support them." That's what will happen... sure we're already doing that with booze, but why make it worse?

[Jorddyn]

Do you honestly think it's reasonable to say "Well lets make pot legal, and anyone who throws away their lives to be a burnt out pot head the good working people who 'are responsible w/ recreational drugs' can support them."

Nope. Do you honestly care what my response is, or would you prefer a long hyperbolic quote?

[Sean]

I havn't smoked pot in awhile but I have no gripes with it being legalized.. that being said I'm not sure I want a stoned Jorddyn doing my taxes..

[Jorddyn]

I havn't smoked pot in awhile but I have no gripes with it being legalized.. that being said I'm not sure I want a stoned Jorddyn doing my taxes..

Then you're incredibly safe, as I haven't smoked pot in a couple years, and haven't done taxes in even longer :)

And, I rarely if ever ambushed anyone, forced them to give me their w-2s, and did their taxes while they were tied up in the basement.

[Sean]

So what you're saying is that it could happen... if you had the munchies?

[Jorddyn]

So what you're saying is that it could happen... if you had the munchies?

If I wasn't distracted by Doritos, something shiny, or watching Dirty Rotten Scoundrels for the 500th time... definite maybe.

[Celephais]

Nope. Do you honestly care what my response is, or would you prefer a long hyperbolic quote?
Can't I not care and get a long hyperbolic quote?

[Latrinsorm]

I've seen studies that show a correlation between marijuana use and psychosis, not a causal relationship. Again, if you know of one showing a causal relationship, I'd be more than happy to read.The only thing science can show is a correlation; that's why it's science and not math (cf. Hume). (Put another way, you never see a confidence interval on a differential equation.) There's only a problem with this (scientifically speaking) is if the points at which you treat verified correlation as causation are distinguishable based upon what you would prefer was the case. If you just want to have "opinions", then I guess you can classify causation (or the lack thereof) for any old reason you like. I don't really see the point in that, though.

[Clove]

And, I rarely if ever ambushed anyone, forced them to give me their w-2s, and did their taxes while they were tied up in the basement.

Ah but for the lucky few...

[Jorddyn]

Can't I not care and get a long hyperbolic quote?

Nope.

[Methais]

You've seemed to have ceded that there can be poor decision making when high or drunk. If that is the case, the behavior that leads to committing more violent crime should be criminalized. The reason being excessively drunk is a crime is for this very reason.

You can be excessively drunk all you want in your own home.


Just using itself lowers immensely the threshold of what motivates a person to commit crime, and often violent crime in drug cases.

In the case of pot (which I think should be legal, not coke and heroin or anything that you could easily OD on and die), I'll have to disagree. Other than maybe stealing a candy bar or a bag of chips from the store, you'll be hard pressed to find someone committing a crime, especially a violent one, because they were stoned. Someone could be all worked up and pissed off over something, ready to go down the road and kick the guy's ass that pissed them off. Then they say "Let's smoke a joint first," smoke a joint, then when it comes time to go kick that guy's ass, they just say "Fuck it." and go order a pizza instead.

Just out of curiosity, anyone happen to know what the violent crime rate is like in Amsterdam compared to here?


Society as a whole has deemed that the possible danger you are to society as a whole when you use this drug (or drink and drive) outweighs your personal right to use it.

People still have the right to drink alcohol, even though some people still drink and drive.

[Celephais]

Other than maybe stealing a candy bar or a bag of chips from the store
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u222/GuinnessKMF/Seagull.gif
Fucking Pothead birds...

[Warriorbird]

Crime in Amsterdam is lower percentage wise than here.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

"Crime" is pretty general. Define that. Source please as well.

[Warriorbird]

:rolls eyes:

Here's an example of 30 seconds Googling.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

My source was my criminal law professor (notoriously conservative, actually) when we were discussing the problem with prosecuting every possession case in the US.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I've learned a lot reading this thread. If you smoke marijuana, you run a serious risk of putting on a trenchcoat and gunning down crowds -- check. In some cases it grants the user temporary telepathic powers. Also, CT was molested by a black jazz musician.

[CrystalTears]

Also, CT was molested by a black jazz musician.
:rofl:

[Celephais]

Also, CT was molested by a black jazz musician.
Bleeding Gums Murphy didn't actually have bad teeth... it was just that... well...
http://www.rob-clarkson.com/duff-brewery/bleedinggumsmurphy/02.jpg

[Methais]

But that's my point.. I'm not impaired on one drink or even 6+. That's why they give field sobriety tests and use their judgment prior to any BAC assessment. The legal limit is really just a guideline. You're level of impairment is the key factor.

Whereas toking some hippie lettuce I'd definitely be impaired.

If the cop wanted to be a dick, he'd make you take a breathalyzer anyway even though you did fine on the sobriety test, and if your BAC is over the legal limit, you're getting a DUI despite passing all your sobriety shit.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

:rolls eyes:

Here's an example of 30 seconds Googling.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

My source was my criminal law professor (notoriously conservative, actually) when we were discussing the problem with prosecuting every possession case in the US.

Per your statistics, so is Saudi Arabi and Hong Kong. Nice.

[Stanley Burrell]

Alcohol is completely flushed out of your system in a day - drugs, like pot, often build up in your brain. And THC addled brains are tres bad. Furthermroe, drugs that have psychotropic effects need to be especially regulated and criminalized - this is why things like absinthe are illegal, because they fuck up your mind.

Nitrous is pretty much flushed out of your system by O2 with the same caliber as alcohol is with water solubility. Like ethanol and unlike weed/absinthium/sassafras/whatever you want to throw up there, it acts primarily as a CNS depressant without psychoactivation and will lower inhibition by decreasing cognitive function.

To spiel on (once more):

I can drink absinthe like it was any other liqueur. I can sip ridiculously saturated sassafras tea, without safrole causing me to have what I would imagine as anything close to ecstasy high because of its MDA precursor (let alone a whole lot of nothing when I drink a specific hollistic tea.)

I take one pull off of a blunt and I am, four for four, psychotic with delusional paranoia with tremendous agitation and capacity.

And this is NOT, i.m.h.o., a matter of "It's schwag vs. highly potent/highly-laced bud." You specifically hit a cluster of neurons, you specifically hit a cluster neurons; no ifs, ands or buts. A human being's liver peroxisomes are not their dopa neuros (i.e.)

Like the former and latter (and I am almost 100% certain that things like wormwood and root bark extract of sassafras are illegal in The United States) both do act (perhaps not with the rigidity of lysergic acid) psychoactively. Period. The fact that human beings have a tad bit more cephalization than a dugesia planaria means that your gangliocytes are going to start sending agonistic mixed signals across a synaptic gap and will then be chemoreceived.

This means that when a human being's brain is stimulated by pot, you are not going to get the net effect of "hey, it's just the same as a drink" because it chemically is not. Neither is wormwood, nor is poppy, nor is sassafras, etc. The fact that these plants (and shit, where do you think ethyl alcohol comes from? We could probably get high smoking mycobacterium secretions) have the precursor element of causing, not cognitive lessening, but heightening (psychoactive) means that you toss a coin (or at least roll a ~ten-100 sided die :smug:) when you have these items consumed by humans.

The "what about all the happy people Amsterdam!" jab makes equal sense, and lack thereof, when responding with "well what about possession penalties in Saudi Arabia or Singapore!" -- I believe, quite firmly, that if Amsterdam had its culture even a tenth as entrenched in paranoia, and actual paranoid psychological disorders, and actual tens of thousands of motor neurons per sq. individual involved in paranoid association & activation amidst its paranoid population, that there would be a tremendous and severely evident problem. Quantifiably.

Discussion group: And call me high, but try and forget that there is even the slightest of risk involved in harming others. Let's say this is moot. And every-freaking-human-being, all of a sudden, smoked weed with only having the chance of hurting themselves brought about by the uncertainty of the substance's interactions with a human brain: Is this somehow O.K.? I personally don't believe it is. Not at all. And I'm not trying to polarize opinions either, but I truly believe, somewhat ironically in today's world, that we have a responsibility as a community of preventing an individual from harming themselves, let alone other individuals (please don't think "Kevorkian" because I didn't go there. I promise.)

And just to rehash what I've already posted previously: You aren't saying "well just don't do it" to the entire American youth and young adult and, why not, adult population of America with the idea of rapid commercialization in the event of having THC available in every not bodega franchise.

[Jorddyn]

I honestly didn't understand most of your post, but to answer your question:


And every-freaking-human-being, all of a sudden, smoked weed with only having the chance of hurting themselves brought about by the uncertainty of the substance's interactions with a human brain: Is this somehow O.K.? I personally don't believe it is.

I personally believe it is. You know the risks/rewards, you decide if it is worth it to you, just like everything else you do in life from opening your front door to driving when it snows to jumping out of an airplane to sticking needles in your eyeballs (none of which I believe should be illegal, either, though I haven't a clue why anyone would do the last).

Obviously the fact that it was illegal wasn't a deterrent to you, and it won't be to many other people. Legalize it, regulate it, and educate users. The rest is up to the people.

[Stanley Burrell]

I honestly didn't understand most of your post, but to answer your question:

Since we're in the business of non-paraphernalia one-liners.


I personally believe it is. You know the risks/rewards, you decide if it is worth it to you, just like everything else you do in life from opening your front door to driving when it snows to jumping out of an airplane to sticking needles in your eyeballs (none of which I believe should be illegal, either, though I haven't a clue why anyone would do the last).

Obviously the fact that it was illegal wasn't a deterrent to you, and it won't be to many other people. Legalize it, regulate it, and educate users. The rest is up to the people.

I didn't understand most of your post, but you mean like alcohol and/or tobacco?

[Jorddyn]

Since we're in the business of non-paraphernalia one-liners.

I didn't understand most of your post, but you mean like alcohol and/or tobacco?

I wasn't being snarky - I do not claim to be a scholar when it comes to the inner workings of the brain, and I haven't a clue the meaning of words such as CNS depressant, peroxisomes, gangliocytes, chemoreceived, and lysergic acid, so I honestly did not understand the vast majority of your post.

And yes, I mean just like alcohol and tobacco. Legalize it, regulate it, and leave the rest up to the people.

[Atlanteax]

Legalize it... and TAX it.

[Stanley Burrell]

All the dirty hippies would be forced into admitting they finance our one-sided terrorism. Sweet.

[Warriorbird]

Per your statistics, so is Saudi Arabi and Hong Kong. Nice.

Believeable enough. One's under Islamic law. One's now under control of a police state.

I agree with Atlanteax. Scary.

Everybody who drives already finances terrorism (and Hugo Chavez), Stan. I doubt they'd care.

[Stanley Burrell]

Everybody who drives already finances terrorism (and Hugo Chavez), Stan. I doubt they'd care.

Suuuure...

Next you'll be telling us about how the lucrative pro-Bush Democracy of Afghanistan finances a heroin trade. Psht.

[Sean of the Thread]

If the cop wanted to be a dick, he'd make you take a breathalyzer anyway even though you did fine on the sobriety test, and if your BAC is over the legal limit, you're getting a DUI despite passing all your sobriety shit.

I've been sent on my way TWICE with a BAC 2x the legal limit because I was sober.

BAC does not determine impairment. It's a guideline.

I guarantee if I was hippie lettuce I woulda' been sent to the pokey.

[Methais]

I've been sent on my way TWICE with a BAC 2x the legal limit because I was sober.

BAC does not determine impairment. It's a guideline.

I guarantee if I was hippie lettuce I woulda' been sent to the pokey.

Which is why I said "If the cop wanted to be a dick." What's the judge going to say to a 2x legal limit BAC?

Judge: Sir, your BAC readout was 2x the legal limit.
You: I know that, but I was sober. The cop was just being a dick.
Judge: Right, off you go then. Case dismissed!


I guarantee if I was hippie lettuce I woulda' been sent to the pokey.

Probably. Again, depending on the cop. I've had friends get hippie lettuce found on them and all that happened was the cop took it away and/or wrote them a ticket. Then probably went home and had it accidentally used to make brownies and then called 911 because he thinks he overdosed.

This thread needs more Bob Saget.

[Stanley Burrell]

Speaking of which:

George: [stands] Alright. Well, in all honesty, I don't feel that what I've done is a crime. And I think it's illogical and irresponsible for you to sentence me to prison. Because, when you think about it, what did I really do? I crossed an imaginary line with a bunch of plants. I mean, you say I'm an outlaw, you say I'm a thief, but where's the Christmas dinner for the people on relief? Huh? You say you're looking for someone who's never weak but always strong, to gather flowers constantly whether you are right or wrong, someone to open each and every door, but it ain't me, babe, huh? No, no, no, it ain't me, babe. It ain't me you're looking for, babe. You follow?

Judge: Yeah... Gosh, you know, your concepts are really interesting, Mister Jung.

George: Thank you.

Judge: Unfortunately for you, the line you crossed was real and the plants you brought with you were illegal, so your bail is twenty thousand dollars.

[Clove]

I'm for legalization- but not for Stanley.

[Celephais]

Awesome... love the Blow reference... maybe I'll watch Blow tonight.

[Jorddyn]

Judge: Unfortunately for you, the line you crossed was real and the plants you brought with you were illegal, so your bail is twenty thousand dollars.

I loved that movie.

And almost fell out of my seat when they showed the picture of the real George Jung. C'mon, let me believe he looks like Johnny Depp!

[Keller]

I've been sent on my way TWICE with a BAC 2x the legal limit because I was sober.

BAC does not determine impairment. It's a guideline.

I guarantee if I was hippie lettuce I woulda' been sent to the pokey.

1) A guideline, which, irregardless of your sobriety, if you blow above it, you will spend the night in lock-up.

2) I guarantee if I was on hippy lettuce I would NOT ever fail a field sobriety test. I guess it's a matter of what you develope a tolerance to.

[Blazing247]

Gotta watch out for the illy these days, unless you like stripping naked and running into traffic.

[Dwarven Empath]

When I was about 17, I got home after school one day and saw my stash along with a pipe and some papers on the kitchen table.

I nearly shit myself.

Haven't touched it since.

[Warriorbird]

Sometimes the question becomes, "What to do with Mr. Potato Head?"

Those poor Australians.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/05/potatohead.bust.ap/index.html

[Celephais]

Sometimes the question becomes, "What to do with Mr. Potato Head?"
Obviously he'd Keister it.

I found this statement a little odd... the wording makes it sound like the "well the maximum is ONLY life".


The Australian Customs Service referred the matter to federal police, but no arrests were immediately made, the agency said. The maximum penalty for importing drugs to Australia is life imprisonment.

[Sean of the Thread]

1) A guideline, which, irregardless of your sobriety, if you blow above it, you will spend the night in lock-up.


Or not.

[Sean]

The answer to the original question is ... it's all given to Travis Henry to dispose of.

[Shifted]

Well the radical conservatism that sprung early in the last century spawned all sorts of bullshit that really pervaded drug education into the 90s until qualified professions pointed out the bullshit of "gateway" and a myriad of other bogus claims.

Had to add

I think Dennis Leary put it best:
Pot doesn't lead to other drugs, it leads to carpentry (referring to bongs). I stopped smoking pot because i didn't want to build anything.

[ElanthianSiren]

One of my aunt's coworkers, who is a bigwig at J&J, smokes blue hawaiian or something like that most weekends. Then you get the kids that have no idea of one pot from another. Trying to draw general conclusions about marijuana users seems, at least anecdotally to me, pointless.

While rec drugs aren't my thing, IMO, pot and alcohol always just seemed rational opposites (initially pot makes you passive, alcohol makes you aggressive; pot lowers indicators, alcohol raises them, and so on).

The medical applications for marijuana are interesting, however, as there are very few medical applications for alcohol at high saturation levels; whereas there are plenty for THC. I don't personally believe that the legality of alcohol and the illegality of marijuana have much to do with safety in the US.

[Gan]

While rec drugs aren't my thing, IMO, pot and alcohol always just seemed rational opposites (initially pot makes you passive, alcohol makes you aggressive; pot lowers indicators, alcohol raises them, and so on).
Alcohol has never made me aggressive. Of course I'm also 6'3" 250 lb. and a type B personality. I dont need to be aggressive. Ergo, alcohol makes me mellow.

[Skeeter]

I almost pulled the trigger on a travis henry trade just 2 days before the drug announcement.

I can dodge bullets baby.