Legalize marijuana

[YELLAHEEP]

This topic always cracks me up.

I don't see the point in trying to legalize something that alters one's state of mind, their grasp on reality, and dulls their reflexes. Are pot-heads just SO disappointed with their lives that they need to escape that badly?

I could certainly list my law enforcement experiences in dealing with pot smokers and it's effect on driving a car, domestic relationship issues, family finances, etc.... but there's always an arguement for those that we've all heard a thousand times. !!!1

And about pot NOT being addicting? :bs: It's causing debates such as these. If it's NOT addicting, then a casual pot user could simply say "oh well, it's illegal and I don't need it anyway." A person that feels they need to spend hours on end defending their recreational use of an illegal substance IS A DADGUM ADDICT. There, I said it.

Why not switch your addiction to 'wheeling and spend your time working on land use issues? Do your persuasive speech on that.

As for me, I need to get busy on legislating the hell outta doughnuts..... it'd be the new D.A.R.E. Donut Abuse and Rotundancy Elimination..... maybe then I could lose some friggin' weight!

 

[xray]

Heres some interesting reading http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?group_ID=6812

 

[funvtec]

it'll never happen pretty soon its going to be illegal to smoke cigarettes

 

[GSequoia]

T maybe then I could lose some friggin' weight!

He he he, a cop addicted to doughnuts.

 

[rock rash]

This topic always cracks me up.

I don't see the point in trying to legalize something that alters one's state of mind, their grasp on reality, and dulls their reflexes.

Isnt that what alcohol does if used in excess?

And about pot NOT being addicting? :bs: It's causing debates such as these. If it's NOT addicting, then a casual pot user could simply say "oh well, it's illegal and I don't need it anyway." A person that feels they need to spend hours on end defending their recreational use of an illegal substance IS A DADGUM ADDICT. There, I said it.

I do not smoke, and therefore I am not an addict. I was a user for a period of time. Gave it up, one day and never went back. It can be mentally addicting, but all I was saying was that it is not physically addictive.

 

[xray]

This topic always cracks me up.

I don't see the point in trying to legalize something that alters one's state of mind, their grasp on reality, and dulls their reflexes. Are pot-heads just SO disappointed with their lives that they need to escape that badly?

I could certainly list my law enforcement experiences in dealing with pot smokers and it's effect on driving a car, domestic relationship issues, family finances, etc.... but there's always an arguement for those that we've all heard a thousand times. !!!1

And about pot NOT being addicting? :bs: It's causing debates such as these. If it's NOT addicting, then a casual pot user could simply say "oh well, it's illegal and I don't need it anyway." A person that feels they need to spend hours on end defending their recreational use of an illegal substance IS A DADGUM

ADDICT. There, I said it.

Why not switch your addiction to 'wheeling and spend your time working on land use issues? Do your persuasive speech on that.

As for me, I need to get busy on legislating the hell outta doughnuts..... it'd be the new D.A.R.E. Donut Abuse and Rotundancy Elimination..... maybe then I could lose some friggin' weight!

Here are some interesting facts
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

 

[YELLAHEEP]

Here are some interesting facts
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

Heres some interesting reading http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?group_ID=6812

The ONLY thing interesting about those articles is that they were written by pro marijuana groups........ You think they're gonna shoot themselves in the foot and print anything other than good, useful things about pot? You can find the same fluff written about alcohol......

Just addicts justifying their crutch.

 

[YELLAHEEP]

Isnt that what alcohol does if used in excess?

There's a worthwhile topic for a persuasive speech.

 

[ZomBrady]

The ONLY thing interesting about those articles is that they were written by pro marijuana groups........ You think they're gonna shoot themselves in the foot and print anything other than good, useful things about pot? You can find the same fluff written about alcohol......

Just addicts justifying their crutch.

Although I tend to agree with you on the principle of addiction, I think that your judgement as to the severity of pot use is hugely overstated.

IMO I think that the proabition of pot is just rather silly, especially when compared to alcohol abuse. But then again, our society was founded on some very puritanical beliefs, in themselves can be very harmful to our society and the individuals with in it.

If someone wants to sit around their house smoking pot and waste their life life away, I say let them. We already have to pay for the illnesses of cigarette smokers, why not add potheads to the list too. Atleast, I won't be paying for them to be in jail.

 

[DrMoab]

it'll never happen pretty soon its going to be illegal to smoke cigarettes

While we are on that subject. I think we should ban smoking. Not because I am anti-smoker in anyway but I just hate the government double standard....Tax tax tax...sue sue sue...make it to where you can't do it anywhere public....why not just ban it?

Seems to me to work best.

 

[5-90]

Government never learns - didn't we do all that with the "Noble Experiment" of Prohibition?

Insanity was once defined by Einstein as "Doing the same thing the same way, and expecting different results." Steve Tyler put it a little differently - "If you do what you always done you'll always get what you always got." They both say the same thing - if what you're doing isn't working, do something else.

5-90

 

[BSD]

Thought I might add my .02. My concern is with the oft repeated but factually inaccurate claim that prohibition was not effective. It was very effective in reducing alcohol consumption and some of the attendant social consequences. I believe Paula Fass' "The Damned and the Beautiful" which explores the emergence of youth culture in the 20's and I think - here I am not sure, if I were at the office I could give you a mess of works - David Brinkley's work on the 20's (no not the anchorman) explore this issue. What people often confuse is enforcement issues and attendent increases in organized crime in a particular area with reducing a particular behavior. Let us be up front that when it comes to illicit behavior, no enforcement approach will ever be truly effective. Furthermore, prohibition - of alchohol or any drug - does not neccesarily increase criminal behavior as much as shift it from a less lucrative area into a more lucrative nad often more visible area.
BSD

 

[5-90]

You can't legislate morality, nor can you improve intelligence through the passage of Law.

That would be another argument against Prohibition - there are those who are just going to have to try for themselves and find out that it is/isn't going to work. The piteous part of that is the simple fact that there are so many drug offenders in jail/prison now, many of whom aren't on their first trip (that's usually what it takes to get a user in prison,) that it obviously isn't working toward the desired goal of reform.

So, what do you propose as Plan B?

5-90

 

[xray]

The ONLY thing interesting about those articles is that they were written by pro marijuana groups........ You think they're gonna shoot themselves in the foot and print anything other than good, useful things about pot? You can find the same fluff written about alcohol......

Just addicts justifying their crutch.

Did you check out the references in those articles? They are medical and clinical studies. All the medical studies on alcohol state the bad effects with the exception of a few, for instance the positive effect of a glass of red wine. The long term use of alcohol does many things to the body liver, kidneys and it has been proven that alcohol kills brain cells. And what about alcohol poisening and birth defects. Im not trying to change your mind on this subject. I am mearly trying to get a point accross as are you. Do you think norml has all that money to cunduct all these studies?

 

[RichP]

It will never be legalized, mainly govt won't allow it, and if they did the results would be disasterous. Think where all those DEA people would end up, they'd swell the ranks of the batf, homeland security. I seem to remember Idaho's biggest cash crop is grass, surpasses potatoes by 200%...downside is it's not taxed, state looses money on that.

 

[5-90]

It will never be legalized, mainly govt won't allow it, and if they did the results would be disasterous. Think where all those DEA people would end up, they'd swell the ranks of the batf, homeland security. I seem to remember Idaho's biggest cash crop is grass, surpasses potatoes by 200%...downside is it's not taxed, state looses money on that.

There is that - agents from one gov't agency that shouldn't exist would end up working for others - rather than actually doing something productive (I wasn't hugely in favour of "Homeland Security" - and we can see what a wonderful job they're doing, airport security is all wrong, and the BATF should never have been formed - or, more correctly, grown out of the Department of the Treasury. Although, the NFA1934 largely is standing because a US Attorney committed perjury...)

Does anyone have any figures on government employment, and what they actually contribute to society? I'd be interested in seeing them - and if it's a government study, please provide a balancing article published outside of the government. As usual, the answer will be somewhere in between the two...

5-90

 

[RichP]

Government is a growth industry, there is not one dept head that would willingly reduce his or her depts manpower, budget or prestige unless forced to, none. Washington measures your 'nads' by the size of your dept and it's budget, no one would willingly be more or less castrated and alot of the depts are to a point where it's tough to grow them anymore, solution, start another dept that has all encompassing powers, eventually I think HS will be riding roughshod over all the other domestic agencies as it grows and will be having a big influene on the other outside agencies. But it's for homeland security and thats a tough one to dispute, like 'for the children', argue against it and your un-american, creten or person of interest... To me Homeland security would have been a dept that Mc Carthy would have drooled over...

 

[5-90]

Oh, yeah. I'm mildly surprised that McCarthy didn't start something like that when he was around...

It's a pity that all these directors measure each other (and themselves!) by the size of their petty little fiefdoms - and that's part of the reason that I'd like to take a swing at the Oval Office one day. Since they're all Executive departments, they can be trimmed by Executive Order, without Congressional oversight.

It's just a pity that we haven't gotten a President with the stones to do it - but they spend the first four years trying to get a second four years - and then they get short-timer's disease, since they know they can't run again.

Granted, I'm in favour of term limits - and I think we should expand them (Congresscritters being in office for 20-30 years is just plain wrong. Don't get me started...) Judicial appointments should be lifetime - it (theoretically) removes them from political influence and pressures. However, elected officials should only serve two or three terms tops - or, worst case, in a row (and then run for re-election. Just like Governors pretty much everywhere.)

There should be no such thing as a "Legislative Retirement Plan" - of any sort. Simply put, no-one should serve long enough to retire.

5-90

 

[BSD]

You can't legislate morality, nor can you improve intelligence through the passage of Law.

That would be another argument against Prohibition - there are those who are just going to have to try for themselves and find out that it is/isn't going to work. The piteous part of that is the simple fact that there are so many drug offenders in jail/prison now, many of whom aren't on their first trip (that's usually what it takes to get a user in prison,) that it obviously isn't working toward the desired goal of reform.

So, what do you propose as Plan B?

5-90

Actuall, you can legislate morality. In fact, that is one of the primary purposes of government. Laws against murder, sodomy, incest, drugs, fair trade.....those are all the legislation of morality. The issue is who's morality will be legislated. In our society, there is this nebulous center of what is moral behavior and this center find esxpressions in teh changing nature of laws. For example, growing acceptance of homosexuality - I don't care what you think about it just and example - has led to a repeal of a large number of state sodomy laws. Or, changing concepts of race have led to the repeal of laws banning interracial marriage. Hence, morality is always being legislated.
I would not suggest an alternative; the only real alternative being some type of anarchy (in the poli-sci sense). The system has worked fairly well. Granted, there will always be those who are unahppy with the type of morality being legislated. In our system, it is their repsonisbility to build a national concensus to affect that change. Prohibition is an excellent example. Prohibition was not a mad experiment of the 1920's. Rather the Volstead Act et al. were the culmination of nearly a century of struggle by the temperance movement to build a national concensus. Remember, Prohibition was roundly supported by the people in municipal, state and national elections. By the early 1930's - much due to the Great Depression - the American people shifted and wanted consumption of alchohol legalized. Consumption of alchohol had lsot much of the tinge of immorality that the Temperance movement had effectively placed upon it. (on a side note, changes in immigration also helped with the repeal of Prohibition.)
BSD

 

[RichP]

Personally I'm not against homosexuality, I actually think it's better if gays are out in the open about it and not hiding it with fake marriages where they actually have kids and raise families. By itself homosexuality is a genetic dead end by it's very nature. Is it a genetic trait thats passed on, I tend to think so, moreso than it being environmently caused.

Hmmm, where'd I leave those nomex long johns...