PDA

View Full Version : Asscroft busts Tommy Chong


peter2002
Feb 25, 2003, 01:58 PM
Saying high times are over for those who sell pipes and bongs favored by pot smokers, federal agents raided more than 100 homes and businesses throughout the nation Monday, including a glass-pipe company owned by actor- comedian Tommy Chong of Cheech and Chong fame.

Chong -- a man whose name is virtually synonymous with recreational marijuana use -- was not among those indicted, and he was not arrested during Monday's raids.

But the 64-year-old actor's Chong Glass company in Los Angeles was cleared of merchandise. A separate search of Chong's Pacific Palisades home uncovered a small amount of marijuana, according to a federal law-enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030225/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/drug_paraphernalia_9
______

This is just a PR stunt by the FBI (Federal Bureau of Idiots). The real drug problem in the USA isn't illegal drugs, it is the legal ones. But nothing is done because the government is partners in crime by taking political donations and taxes. Take for instance the cig taxes. 500,000 people die a year from cigs. A lot more than the terrorists are killing. But the gov. takes tax money and use it to build roads and teach stupid brats in failing schools, not to help the ones dieing from cigs.

50,000+ die a year from alcohol related crashes. A lot more than Osama has killed, but the government just turns the other way and takes all the sin taxes.

How many die from pot a year? Not one ever, and that is a fact.

Plus, the Feds will never get a conviction for this. California jurys are notoriously liberal on the pot issue. This is just a waste of time and tax money better spent elsewhere. Plus, glass pipes aren't illegal. You can't sue because of an illegal purpose. That would be liking making guns illegal because you might shoot someone or making lighters illegal because you might light a joint.

Pete :rolleyes:

Backtothemac
Feb 25, 2003, 02:03 PM
Get real pete, get some real sense. Quit posting flame bate! The law is the law. What just because there is a war on terror going on, we have to stop enforcing all the other laws? Or does being famous change the rules by which you have to play? THE LAW IS THE LAW!

Man, sometimes you act like the potato head!

iJon
Feb 25, 2003, 02:41 PM
dont worry about him, he is always posting stuff like this. no one really cares. the goverment has caught many terrorists so far. go watch headline news and stuff.

iJon

Backtothemac
Feb 25, 2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by iJon
dont worry about him, he is always posting stuff like this. no one really cares. the goverment has caught many terrorists so far. go watch headline news and stuff.

iJon

Don't worry about me, or don't worry about him?

iJon
Feb 25, 2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Don't worry about me, or don't worry about him?
haha pete, not you.

iJon

Backtothemac
Feb 25, 2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by iJon
haha pete, not you.

iJon

Yea, his threads are really starting to get out of line a bit. It is almost boarding on spam in my opinion. Some of them are entertaining, but this is getting unreal.

Perci Mac
Feb 25, 2003, 03:11 PM
Well I guess the fact the marijuana is illegal didn't occur to you. Or that it's the FBI's job and Ash crofts job to enforce the law. Of course good ol' pete won't respond, he just posts threads and then leaves. Flamebaiter.

Soma_Addict
Feb 25, 2003, 03:17 PM
I think the problem is not that marijuana is illegal, it is that the pipes are not. Ashcroft cleared out Tommy Chong's factory, a factory that was a legal business with real business licenses that have been approved by the federal government.

Just because the pipes can be used with an illegal substance does not make them illegal by association. The pipes can also be used in a purely legal fashion.

Backtothemac
Feb 25, 2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Soma_Addict
I think the problem is not that marijuana is illegal, it is that the pipes are not. Ashcroft cleared out Tommy Chong's factory, a factory that was a legal business with real business licenses that have been approved by the federal government.

Just because the pipes can be used with an illegal substance does not make them illegal by association. The pipes can also be used in a purely legal fashion.

I don't know about the law there, but here. Yep, they could Paraphenalia is illegal in most states.

markjones05
Feb 25, 2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Soma_Addict
I think the problem is not that marijuana is illegal, it is that the pipes are not. Ashcroft cleared out Tommy Chong's factory, a factory that was a legal business with real business licenses that have been approved by the federal government.

Just because the pipes can be used with an illegal substance does not make them illegal by association. The pipes can also be used in a purely legal fashion.

I totally agree with you. And I do think that there are more important things that the FBI should be doing besides busting people for small amount of marijuana. Why not at least focus on a real drug. What the hell did marijuana ever do to anyone?

macfan
Feb 25, 2003, 03:25 PM
Soma_Addict,

I think the problem is not that marijuana is illegal, it is that the pipes are not.

Not being stupid enough to smoke the crap myself, I have never bothered to familarize myself with the laws on this, but the linked story clear indicates that the pipes are not, in fact, legal.

It seems a little odd to have laws against little pieces of glass, but, if you don't like the law, call your representatives and have it changed.

Soma_Addict
Feb 25, 2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I don't know about the law there, but here. Yep, they could Paraphenalia is illegal in most states.

Not so in California. As long as the item is sold under the advertisment that it is for tobacco use only then it is ok. In fact if the customer suggests that it is for anything else or even calls it a bong then the store is not supposed to sell the item. A close friend of mine used to work in a head shop/comic store and he said that the head shop people(my friend worked in the comic book shop part of the store) would always refuse to sell the water pipes to people who called it a bong or said that they were going to use it for other purposes.

The fundamental issue is that the government, whether federal or state, has given people the permission to do business and then arrest them for doing it successfully.

Here are some quotes from the article:

"We've done everything the right way, and the government is saying there is no right way." - Tommy Chong's publicist Brandie Knight.

"Why after seven years in business does this happen? Why not just approach us?" said Fern Thomas, 29, a bookkeeper for 101 North Glass Inc. in Arcata, Humboldt County, which sells blown-glass pipes and other products to resellers.

markjones05
Feb 25, 2003, 03:40 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by macfan
[B]Soma_Addict,



Not being stupid enough to smoke the crap myself, I have never bothered to familarize myself with the laws on this

I didnt know there were people out there who never tried marijuana. How old are you?

Soma_Addict
Feb 25, 2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Soma_Addict,



Not being stupid enough to smoke the crap myself, I have never bothered to familarize myself with the laws on this, but the linked story clear indicates that the pipes are not, in fact, legal.

It seems a little odd to have laws against little pieces of glass, but, if you don't like the law, call your representatives and have it changed.

I have never smoked it either, but when you live in San Francisco then you atleast know someone who does or have some sort of knowledge on the subject.

the glass pipes are not illegal. you can go to meditereanian restuarants and smoke hookah's with flavored tobacco. the glass pipes are illegal when they are sold as drug paraphernalia, but if the store owners and such are selling it only to customers who use it only with tobacco or say that they will then the store owners are not breaking the law. the pipes are not illegal drug paraphernalia if they are being used legally.

Taft
Feb 25, 2003, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Get real pete, get some real sense. Quit posting flame bate! The law is the law. What just because there is a war on terror going on, we have to stop enforcing all the other laws? Or does being famous change the rules by which you have to play? THE LAW IS THE LAW!

Man, sometimes you act like the potato head!

YOU get real!

There are more issues here than the fact that pot is illegal. Some other's here have raised very good points about the absurdity of paraphenalia laws and the problems this raid, so I won't go into it. And I'll side step the issue of the war on drugs, that belongs in a thread to itself (though, no matter how many statistics and pieces of evidence I produce, people always piss on my parade with the "drugs are bad" tagline).

What I will go into is this justice department's constant want to push the limits of state's rights and civil rights. A perfect example is their prosecution and persecution of state sanctioned medicinal marijuana users in California. They have arrested and successfully prosecuted several legal participants in Cali's medicinal marijuana laws by imposing federal laws on them and not allowing evidence of medicinal marijuana affiliation into the trial. They recently convicting one man who was sanctioned by a city to sell medicinal marijuana. He could go to prison.

When a law enforcement office is so bent on prosecuting law abiding citizens, I start to question their motivations and whether they act in the best interests of the people. I think this Justice Department's track record for these kind of acts is horrible. The fact that this administration is sponsering these acts is equally sickening. And the fact that Bush ran a campaign promoting state's rights is down right gag-worthy.

Blah.

Taft

iJon
Feb 25, 2003, 03:50 PM
i havent smoked it and i am 17. i have lots of friends who do though. i dont have anything against my friends who do it, i just dont think its smart and i dont want to do it to my body. but to say you didnt know that anybody out there who hasnt smoked it is just plain stupid.

iJon

Taft
Feb 25, 2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Soma_Addict,



Not being stupid enough to smoke the crap myself, I have never bothered to familarize myself with the laws on this, but the linked story clear indicates that the pipes are not, in fact, legal.

It seems a little odd to have laws against little pieces of glass, but, if you don't like the law, call your representatives and have it changed.

The law actually states that pipes whose primary purpose is for drug consumption are illegal.

This is important as the law is very vague and defining or assigning a "primary purpose" to a pipe or bong is difficult. Most are sold with the idea that they will be used for tobacco. The pipes' sellers or the Justice Department never know what the pipes will be used for--only the person buying the pipe knows that for sure. So for many years, it was sufficient to say that the pipes were being sold for tobacco use only.

The justice department has decided to start going after dealers of these instruments now, basically reinterpretting the laws and going after business people who, like it or not, have been legitimately selling these products for years. Because the law is vague, they are getting away with this prosecution, but I find it maddening.

Just another reason why I hate this friggin' administration.

BTW-- I love the way you cast judgement on the pot users of the world. F***in' hippies, right?

Taft

markjones05
Feb 25, 2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by iJon
i havent smoked it and i am 17. i have lots of friends who do though. i dont have anything against my friends who do it, i just dont think its smart and i dont want to do it to my body. but to say you didnt know that anybody out there who hasnt smoked it is just plain stupid.

iJon

I agree that i was exaggerating when i said i dont know anyone who hasn't tried marijuana, however it is rare to find someone who has never touched to stuff even once. More power to ya if your 17 (prime age to experimenting) and manage to avoid it. Good luck with college.

iJon
Feb 25, 2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by markjones05
I agree that i was exaggerating when i said i dont know anyone who hasn't tried marijuana, however it is rare to find someone who has never touched to stuff even once. More power to ya if your 17 (prime age to experimenting) and manage to avoid it. Good luck with college.
i had a feeling you werent being to serious too. but dont worry, ill have a great time in college. its no that im ignorant to weed and i just havent had the oppurtunity to try it, its just it doesnt appeal to me at all. ive known too many people who smoke ive just learned to hate it. its annoying when i go to restaurants or any an other event that involves smoke polutting my air. i will have fun in college, just not with that.

iJon

zuffen
Feb 25, 2003, 04:16 PM
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030225/D7PDFCM00.html

The world is paved with good intentions....

Thanatoast
Feb 25, 2003, 04:18 PM
The feds seem to be arresting people before a crime has occurred. If I buy a gun, they don't arrest me for shooting someone before I use it, yet that is the primary purpose of owning a gun (pistol). Why are they arresting pipe producers for making pipes that have not been used illegally? Makes no sense.

And just for fun:

markjones05
Feb 25, 2003, 04:21 PM
I wasnt trying to imply that you wouldnt have fun in college without the use of marijuana. Obviously you are more resistant to peer pressure than others and thats good. There are plenty of other ways to have fun in college besides marijuan believe me. I am a sphomore now who enjoys taking the edge off from time to time. I only write in this thread because I am for the legalization of marijuana, and I got aggravated to see everyone jump down petes back when he made this thread.

What school sare you looking at?

iJon
Feb 25, 2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by markjones05
I wasnt trying to imply that you wouldnt have fun in college without the use of marijuana. Obviously you are more resistant to peer pressure than others and thats good. There are plenty of other ways to have fun in college besides marijuan believe me. I am a sphomore now who enjoys taking the edge off from time to time. I only write in this thread because I am for the legalization of marijuana, and I got aggravated to see everyone jump down petes back when he made this thread.

What school sare you looking at?
not really sure yet. im still a junior so ill be looking more next year. somewhere that has a good business school hopefully. i also would like to go to a big name school with a good basketball and football team because ill be one of the guys who camps outside the night before student tickets go on sale. it would drive me crazy if my school sucked at sports.

iJon

sparkleytone
Feb 25, 2003, 04:30 PM
hey something i can agree with pete on.

just go away people. go get the killers and terrorists. someone wants to smoke pot in their house with an artistic piece of glass? how am i supposed to just KNOW they arent going to use it to smoke tobacco?

cigarettes are much worse. they are addictive, people do it everywhere in your face, and tobacco companies target children. its not like there are people pushing marijuana on kids everywhere. thats just not the nature of the drug.

'the law is the law' is such a copout. the draft was the law as well, but i believe that people should have had the right in the 60s to refuse service. muhammed ali is a prime example. why fight against wrongs done by another nation for a country that doesn't even recognize a person's basic human rights regardless of color?

yeah, its a stretch, but the principles are the same. the government wants to make examples of people who partake in actions and make decisions that are technically against the law, when the law directly contradicts other perfectly legal, arguably greater offenses to american society. only in order to get some press and to take the american eye off of the things that truly matter; the things that they are failing miserably at.

go away, stop the fanfare, and go catch some real criminals.

zuffen
Feb 25, 2003, 04:39 PM
"If I buy a gun, they don't arrest me for shooting someone before I use it, yet that is the primary purpose of owning a gun (pistol)."

That kind of statement doesn't make sense.

The primary purpose of a pistol or a rifle is not killing a human being,
The primary pupose of guns are the use in a sport, whether hunting, or target shooting or historical collecting, or just the plain interest in the gun itself.

Yes guns make an effective killing device, but so does a baseball bat ,a tire iron, a knife or even a car! And many more.

Guns are used in violent crimes and that is a fact. But violent crimes don't require a gun, they can be done with any tool.

The intent of crime lies in the individual, not the tools used.

A crime isn't committed by posessing a gun, or a bong, or camera.

But those items can be used in a crime when a human makes the choice to shoot someone, smoke pot or take a sexual picture of a minor.

The bottom line is freedom first , freedom of choice and then the law comes second.

By banning guns and bongs your taking away a freedom of choice.

The governement is not made up of the people, but of individuals with agendas satisfying thier own wants and needs and the lobbies who pay for the path to political power.

If the greater majority of society decides to ban those items then the government should follow the wishes of the people.

Ashcroft hasn't asked me what I think , has he asked you? He is on his own witch hunt.

RandomDeadHead
Feb 25, 2003, 05:08 PM
They are very selective, my favorate head shop located next door from has been open for 10 years without incident. Like someone said this was a pr bust. I like it when the gov says the the mexican border is locked up tight. what a joke, I can walk down the street and pick up a quarter bag of mexican dirt weed for $25.00. Oh and the whole pot supports terrorist thing is NOTHING BUT PROPAGANDA, I can trace ALL the pot I get to a mountain 35 miles from my office, where my friends mave been growning the finest North Carolina herb for 20 years. The local police chief is their first born son. Their doughter is a doctor at the local hospital, and their niece is my wife. So I say,

Bush and his multifaceted war machine can suck my D**K.

rainman::|:|
Feb 25, 2003, 06:07 PM
backtothemac: if the government tried to tell you that christianity promoted terrorism, then made it illegal, would you change your beliefs? i doubt it, because it's absurd. sometimes the government is wrong

civil disobedience is ... well, basically the only way change has EVER happened.

the people (whom the government "serves") have changed, the gov't itself just refuses. even in states where the majority of voters agree (california), the feds say that the state has no soverignity in the issue... and go in (against the state's will) and make busts.

does that seem more like the federal government is
a) interested in finding out what the people want in their respective states, then working with the states themselves to accomplish this; or
b) furthering their own agenda and sticking to a failed 75-year old prohibition rather than admit that they were wrong...

pnw

macfan
Feb 25, 2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by macfan
[B]Soma_Addict,



Not being stupid enough to smoke the crap myself, I have never bothered to familarize myself with the laws on this

I didnt know there were people out there who never tried marijuana. How old are you?



markjones05,

I too old to start smoking the crap now, but it's not like it hasn't been arond my whole life! One Time Magazine poll I saw cited said that about half of the population had ever tried marijuana. How many people do you know?

That I think it is stupid to smoke the crap doesn't have anything to do with whether the stuff should be legal or not. It's just generally not very bright to smoke something that will mess around your brain, IMO. I've heard the arguments about how it's harmless, but I've also seen the research on it's negative effects on memory, and it has some effects that are similar to tobacco, in terms of illnesses like bronchitis, so why bother with the crap?


zuffen,

A crime isn't committed by posessing a gun, or a bong, or camera.

It can be a crime, depending on the circumstances. Ever read the signs in the post office?

zuffen
Feb 25, 2003, 07:28 PM
Federal buildings post offices, banks schools, yeah.....just another law to further the power of the government. I can see some sense (schools mainly) in it but it is a right, not a privilege to bear arms, and by limiting my right by setting up laws that protect whom? If I was going to commit a crime I would be breaking the law regardless of the anti gun laws.

Just like taking away finger nail clippers on flights. What do you think will be next.

Some states you can't own a handgun.

In England home invasion with violence has escalated to scary levels , just because a person can't protect themself. The government is supposed to protect you, but how can they be there the instant someone is raping your wife or daughter, or cutting your throat on a home burglary.

I'm not an advocate of gun ownership. I'm just an advocate of common sense.

Criminals don't care about laws, how are you supposed to protect yourself when the system promotes crime. And the response time, training, and availability of law enforcemnet to protect me, well the outcome leans heavily towards the criminal. It is very rare a crime is witnessed by law enforcement, cops are usually there to write up reports and put you in a body bag, after the fact.

kylos
Feb 25, 2003, 07:44 PM
What the hell did marijuana ever do to anyone?

I personally know a guy who wandered into a street while high and got creamed by a car. Now he walks poorly and has severe brain damage. Mind altering substances can leave permanent damage. Maybe you won't die of lung cancer or something but you will end up hurting yourself.

Now I often take Libertarian views so I'm not sure I agree that marijuana should be illegal; however, it's nothing to get civilly disobedient about. I mean you're just stupid if you use drugs as well as if you smoke cigarettes, drive while drunk, don't buckle up, etc.

markjones05
Feb 25, 2003, 09:30 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kyle?
[B]I personally know a guy who wandered into a street while high and got creamed by a car. Now he walks poorly and has severe brain damage. Mind altering substances can leave permanent damage. Maybe you won't die of lung cancer or something but you will end up hurting yourself.

Isn't alcohol a mind altering material? One that has caused more car accidents than marijuana ever has? Just because you knew a guy who happened to be high instead of drunk doesnt make this a valid point.

markjones05
Feb 25, 2003, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by macfan


markjones05,

I too old to start smoking the crap now, but it's not like it hasn't been arond my whole life! One Time Magazine poll I saw cited said that about half of the population had ever tried marijuana. How many people do you know?

That I think it is stupid to smoke the crap doesn't have anything to do with whether the stuff should be legal or not. It's just generally not very bright to smoke something that will mess around your brain, IMO. I've heard the arguments about how it's harmless, but I've also seen the research on it's negative effects on memory, and it has some effects that are similar to tobacco, in terms of illnesses like bronchitis, so why bother with the crap?


zuffen,



It can be a crime, depending on the circumstances. Ever read the signs in the post office? [/QUOTE]


No it isnt very smart to smoke things that mess around with your brain, or drink things that mess around with your brain either. Any sort of substance abuse is bad. But marijuana just like alcohol is harmless when used responsibly in small doses. C'mon now im sure you wouldn't feel the same way if someone took away your privleges to drink responsibly.

Les Kern
Feb 25, 2003, 10:07 PM
One of my favorite statistics and I think very indicative of why our country is broken: White males are 70% more likely to use drugs than blacks, but blacks are 40 TIMES more likely to do jail time.
I personally haven't used grass since 1978 (and I DO miss it!) but I really don't see anything wrong with it. One poster was right, I think. Our priorities are all screwed up. Penalizing drug users is stupid, and more effort should be put into fixing our culture... and our stupid laws.

Les Kern
Feb 25, 2003, 10:14 PM
[QUOTE]It's just generally not very bright to smoke something that will mess around your brain, IMO. I've heard the arguments about how it's harmless, but I've also seen the research on it's negative effects on memory, and it has some effects that are similar to tobacco, in terms of illnesses like bronchitis, so why bother with the crap?

Man, all this talk about weed is urging me to go out and get a dime. But what's a dime now, a billion dollars? Could you imagine the tax money Uncle Slam would get on marijuana alone?
A joint or ten a week is a hell of a lot different than 20 cigarettes a day, and a whole lot more different than 10 beers a day. Weed is harmless and I should know... I smoked a LOT for years and I ain't gots no dain bramage.

markjones05
Feb 25, 2003, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Les Kern
One of my favorite statistics and I think very indicative of why our country is broken: White males are 70% more likely to use drugs than blacks, but blacks are 40 TIMES more likely to do jail time.
I personally haven't used grass since 1978 (and I DO miss it!) but I really don't see anything wrong with it. One poster was right, I think. Our priorities are all screwed up. Penalizing drug users is stupid, and more effort should be put into fixing our culture... and our stupid laws.


This guy knows the deal. :D

dime is 10
gram is 20
after that it can vary but it is way over priced; well, for good ****.

macfan
Feb 26, 2003, 03:30 AM
markjones05,

But marijuana just like alcohol is harmless when used responsibly in small doses. C'mon now im sure you wouldn't feel the same way if someone took away your privleges to drink responsibly.

If I was visiting a country where alcohol was banned, I would forego it. Just like I wouldn't smoke tobacco (if I were a smoker) on an airplane.

Les,

White males are 70% more likely to use drugs than blacks, but blacks are 40 TIMES more likely to do jail time.

Think about those numbers. They don't make sense. It is really unlikely that the rates of drug use among white men is 70 percent higher than it is among black men.

dricci
Feb 26, 2003, 08:05 AM
I don't see why legally consenting adults can't do whatever they want to their bodies in the privacy of their own home, as long as they don't violate the rights of others around them.

Think about it. Why does the government need to know everything you do, when you're harming nobody but yourself?

I'm for the legalization of everything. Nothing should be banned. Instead, you punish people that violate the rights of others. That way we don't need 50 thousand different laws to cover something like killing.

You kill somebody, you've commited a crime. It doesn't matter if you were driving drunk/stoned, used a baseball bat or a rocket launcher. You kill somebody, that's a crime. (Of course, this doesn't count for self defense, only for when you willingly take away the right of life to a living human who was not trying to take away your right to life). The same thing could be applied to other things as well, like theft (although killing wouldn't be called for here, instead you should be forced to pay back whatever you stole to whom you stole it from, and with interest). It just seems more logical than the system we have now.

The duty of the government is to protect our rights and to protect us from foreign invasion, not sit and dictate what we can and can't do to ourselves and with our family and friends. Freedom: You're either free, or you're not.

If people took responsibility for their actions, then the world would be a much better place.

Taft
Feb 26, 2003, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by macfan

Think about those numbers. They don't make sense. It is really unlikely that the rates of drug use among white men is 70 percent higher than it is among black men.

They aren't quite right, but the idea behind them is...

From: http://www.drugwarfacts.com/druguse.htm

According to the National Household Survey, in 2001, 28.4 million Americans aged 12 or over (12.6% of the US population aged 12 and over) used an illicit drug. Of these, 21.1 million were White, 3.1 million were Black, and 2.9 million were Hispanic.


There are approximately 35 million blacks in the country and around 195 million whites. So...

21.1 / 195 = 10.82 % of whites have used drug in the past year.

and

3.1 / 35 = 8.86 % of blacks have used drugs in the past year.

So its not 70% more by percentage of total ethnic population, but more whites do use drugs. Also, as proportion of the drug users, whites make up around 70 percent of drug users. This is a less useful number, but eye-opening nonetheless. But now to the fun part...

From: http://www.drugwarfacts.com/racepris.htm

Regarding State prison population growth from 1990 through 2000, the US Dept. of Justice reports, "Overall, the increasing number of drug offenses accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 7% of the total growth among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of the growth among white inmates (table 19).

and...

Among persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts, whites were less likely than African-Americans to be sent to prison. Thirty-three percent (33%) of convicted white defendants received a prison sentence, while 51% of African-American defendants received prison sentences. It should also be noted that Hispanic felons are included in both demographic groups rather than being tracked separately so no separate statistic is available.

It should also be noted that we have the highest prison population in the world (about 700 per 100,000). Given the fact that nearly 30% of new black inmates (and 15% of new white inmates) are for drug related crimes, don't you think something is wrong????

Taft

Backtothemac
Feb 26, 2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Taft
YOU get real!

There are more issues here than the fact that pot is illegal. Some other's here have raised very good points about the absurdity of paraphenalia laws and the problems this raid, so I won't go into it. And I'll side step the issue of the war on drugs, that belongs in a thread to itself (though, no matter how many statistics and pieces of evidence I produce, people always piss on my parade with the "drugs are bad" tagline).

What I will go into is this justice department's constant want to push the limits of state's rights and civil rights. A perfect example is their prosecution and persecution of state sanctioned medicinal marijuana users in California. They have arrested and successfully prosecuted several legal participants in Cali's medicinal marijuana laws by imposing federal laws on them and not allowing evidence of medicinal marijuana affiliation into the trial. They recently convicting one man who was sanctioned by a city to sell medicinal marijuana. He could go to prison.

When a law enforcement office is so bent on prosecuting law abiding citizens, I start to question their motivations and whether they act in the best interests of the people. I think this Justice Department's track record for these kind of acts is horrible. The fact that this administration is sponsering these acts is equally sickening. And the fact that Bush ran a campaign promoting state's rights is down right gag-worthy.

Blah.

Taft

No, he needs to get real. He is flamebait. He posts these ************ threads and never ever comes back for a follow up post. It is too much. As for the issue itself, lets look at it shall we.
If federal law says it is illegal, state law cannot override that. Period. Like it, no, but that is reality. How in the hell can you say that they are prosecuting law abiding citizens? Who Tommy Chong? They found pot, he wasn't even arrested though. This is not about whether post should be illegal, I will agree that it should not be, but this is about the law, and the law is blind, and the law is the law. Period!

Backtothemac
Feb 26, 2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
backtothemac: if the government tried to tell you that christianity promoted terrorism, then made it illegal, would you change your beliefs? i doubt it, because it's absurd. sometimes the government is wrong


WHAT! Paul, this has nothing to do with religion. Don't compare pot smoking to religion. That is BS! It doesn't matter if we want it legal, it isn't. Period!


Oh, and Random dead head. briliant post. You and your mulitfacited drug habit can take a long walk on a short pier.

Seriously, this isn't about what we think is legal, it is about what is illegal. You want Pot legal, good for you. The majority of America doesn't want it legal, and for good reason. Oh, and who ever said how has pot ever hurt anyone. One of my best friends became a constant head. Lost his wife, and son, his job, got kicked out of school, and the last time I heard about him, was homeless, and hooked on crack. So yea, it is a problem.

Taft
Feb 26, 2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, he needs to get real. He is flamebait. He posts these ************ threads and never ever comes back for a follow up post. It is too much. As for the issue itself, lets look at it shall we.
If federal law says it is illegal, state law cannot override that. Period. Like it, no, but that is reality. How in the hell can you say that they are prosecuting law abiding citizens? Who Tommy Chong? They found pot, he wasn't even arrested though. This is not about whether post should be illegal, I will agree that it should not be, but this is about the law, and the law is blind, and the law is the law. Period!

Seperate the two issues.

One is Tommy Chong and his pipe selling (the pot they found is an incidental offense and doesn't have anything to do with the paraphenalia discussion). The other is the issue of state's rights versus federal law.

I've answered the first very thoroughly, it is illegal ONLY by a certain interpretation of a very vague law. This interpretation hasn't been in wide spread use in the past.

The second is a vital issue which I thought any republican in favor of smaller government would side with me on. State laws often contridict federal laws. This is one of those cases. So a law abiding citizen of California law can be prosecuted by Federal law with NO REGARD to the state laws that they were operating under. THAT ISN'T RIGHT!!! No matter which way you take it it isn't right.

There needs to be some mitigating process under which these cases are resolved. Think about it: whether or not a person goes to jail for certain actions is wholly dependant on whick law enforcement agency he is arrested by. Federal: he goes to prison. State: ...well he wouldn't be arrested in the first place. Seems a bit arbitrary, no?

Bush ran a campaign focusing on state's rights and rights to choose on the medicinal marijuana issue. He is acting contrary to that by allowing his Justice Department to prosecute people INNOCENT UNDER STATE LAWS.

How can you argue otherwise?

Taft

Les Kern
Feb 26, 2003, 09:41 AM
Thanks for posting the correct number. It's close to 70% more likely, but I was off on the rest. But it IS an eye-opener nonetheless. My whole point here is that I believe in the rule of law, I believe that some laws are stupid, I believe we must have people pay for their crimes. What I don't believe in is the belief by some that the laws are applied fairly, and also believe some laws are truly stupid.
It's a matter of degrees. I don't believe in the death penalty, my close friend does, Texas will kill anything breathing. It's was not too long ago illegal to carry a duck on a bus in Evanston Indiana. Marijuana, after how many years of conflict and lawmaking? is harmless compared to, say, cigarettes. The state believes that they should protect us agains such mind-altering things added to some list 80 years ago, but in reality alcohol, cigarettes and freakin' ephedrine is infinitely more dangerous. For 20 minutes those police were busting a glass factory, how many people died while driving drunk, or were raped, or were murdered? We need to eliminate the trivial, leave adults alone, and re-work our laws and apply them in a fair way.
Now I have to get to work.

Backtothemac
Feb 26, 2003, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Taft
Seperate the two issues.

One is Tommy Chong and his pipe selling (the pot they found is an incidental offense and doesn't have anything to do with the paraphenalia discussion). The other is the issue of state's rights versus federal law.

I've answered the first very thoroughly, it is illegal ONLY by a certain interpretation of a very vague law. This interpretation hasn't been in wide spread use in the past.

The second is a vital issue which I thought any republican in favor of smaller government would side with me on. State laws often contridict federal laws. This is one of those cases. So a law abiding citizen of California law can be prosecuted by Federal law with NO REGARD to the state laws that they were operating under. THAT ISN'T RIGHT!!! No matter which way you take it it isn't right.

There needs to be some mitigating process under which these cases are resolved. Think about it: whether or not a person goes to jail for certain actions is wholly dependant on whick law enforcement agency he is arrested by. Federal: he goes to prison. State: ...well he wouldn't be arrested in the first place. Seems a bit arbitrary, no?

Bush ran a campaign focusing on state's rights and rights to choose on the medicinal marijuana issue. He is acting contrary to that by allowing his Justice Department to prosecute people INNOCENT UNDER STATE LAWS.

How can you argue otherwise?

Taft

Well, I agree with you on the entire part of the 1st issue. On the second issue, would federal law not make State law moot? I am not saying I like that, but think about it. Abortion. Supreme court laid down the law, States have to abide by that. Is drug use, etc not part of Federal law? I also think there is more to this story than what is showing up? Perhaps smuggling? Who knows. But I do see your point, do you see mine?

Taft
Feb 26, 2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Seriously, this isn't about what we think is legal, it is about what is illegal. You want Pot legal, good for you. The majority of America doesn't want it legal, and for good reason.

What good reason??

The fact that our prisons are overcrowded with pot law offending criminals? The fact that we spend a pant-load of money every year on fighting pot use and pot use is still a problem? Or is it about the people lives which are destroyed by needless prosecution and incarceration? Or the fear and stigma attached to seeking help to mental--thats right, MENTAL--addiction to pot because it is illegal. Or is it because of the lives lost on both sides of the war on drugs--the lives that could be saved if the drugs were controlled and legalized and sold through legitimate organizations?

Or are you thinking of the myriad of bad statistics pointing to pot being a gateway drug or being physically addictive or being involved with 30% of every person TESTED for drugs after an accident?

Or maybe, just maybe, its the fact that you're using a single experience of a person with some serious problems--and happened to use marijuana--and whose life went down the toilet to color your perception of the drug. The same drug that has medicinal purposes. The same drug that a litany of studies, economic reports, and statistics show to be not only relatively very safe, but also point to the NEED of legalization to ease the horrible effects of the war on drugs.

Taft

LethalWolfe
Feb 26, 2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by zuffen
Federal buildings post offices, banks schools, yeah.....just another law to further the power of the government. I can see some sense (schools mainly) in it but it is a right, not a privilege to bear arms, and by limiting my right by setting up laws that protect whom?


You have a right in the US to own firearms. How is a banks "no guns allowed inside" policy infringing on your right to own a firearm?


Lethal

Backtothemac
Feb 26, 2003, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Taft
What good reason??

The fact that our prisons are overcrowded with pot law offending criminals? The fact that we spend a pant-load of money every year on fighting pot use and pot use is still a problem? Or is it about the people lives which are destroyed by needless prosecution and incarceration? Or the fear and stigma attached to seeking help to mental--thats right, MENTAL--addiction to pot because it is illegal. Or is it because of the lives lost on both sides of the war on drugs--the lives that could be saved if the drugs were controlled and legalized and sold through legitimate organizations?

Or are you thinking of the myriad of bad statistics pointing to pot being a gateway drug or being physically addictive or being involved with 30% of every person TESTED for drugs after an accident?

Or maybe, just maybe, its the fact that you're using a single experience of a person with some serious problems--and happened to use marijuana--and whose life went down the toilet to color your perception of the drug. The same drug that has medicinal purposes. The same drug that a litany of studies, economic reports, and statistics show to be not only relatively very safe, but also point to the NEED of legalization to ease the horrible effects of the war on drugs.

Taft

The main reason for me, kids. We have enough as parents to worry about now with Alchohol, tobacco, and even drugs. Now, legalize the drugs, and you have even more problem. Your perception is lowered, your ability to make judgements is lowered. People die because of that. I don't believe all the right wing statistics so, don't you believe the left. People do drive stoned, and make mistakes and kill people. Now, legalize it for medical patients. Yep. My mom smoked when she was going through kemo. I just don't think that we are responsible enough as a society to have a legal drug. Look how we treated X before it was illegal, same with pot. Subcultures form, etc. Not good in my opinon.

Now, that said, do I think Pot is harmless. For most people, yes. People being adults, who do not suffer from mental conditions, etc.

Taft
Feb 26, 2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, I agree with you on the entire part of the 1st issue. On the second issue, would federal law not make State law moot? I am not saying I like that, but think about it. Abortion. Supreme court laid down the law, States have to abide by that. Is drug use, etc not part of Federal law? I also think there is more to this story than what is showing up? Perhaps smuggling? Who knows. But I do see your point, do you see mine?

Yeah, I do. But I don't think that saying, "Oh, they're criminals, put them in jail!" is the answer.

Right now, federal law doesn't specifically say "marijuana can't be used for medicinal purposes." Instead, a federal government agency has said that the drug is a controlled substance and has no medicinal value, therefore it can't be prescribed by a doctor.

So that is my problem with this type of prosecution. See my side??

Taft

Backtothemac
Feb 26, 2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Taft
Yeah, I do. But I don't think that saying, "Oh, they're criminals, put them in jail!" is the answer.

Right now, federal law doesn't specifically say "marijuana can't be used for medicinal purposes." Instead, a federal government agency has said that the drug is a controlled substance and has no medicinal value, therefore it can't be prescribed by a doctor.

So that is my problem with this type of prosecution. See my side??

Taft

Totally agree. Remember in my platform, I moved for the treatment of users, not punishment i jail. Also, remember he was busted on a law against paraphanallia (sp bad :))

That was my point. That is law. Petty, maybe, but still the law.

Taft
Feb 26, 2003, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I just don't think that we are responsible enough as a society to have a legal drug. Look how we treated X before it was illegal, same with pot. Subcultures form, etc. Not good in my opinon.


But look at how alcohol is was treated during prohibition. Bad stuff. Look at how alcohol is treated by teens today or kids at college. Binge drinking is at an all-time high. Legality and availability play a big role in this.

Our kids need to be taught the FACTS on drug and alcohol consumption. We need to teach them to consume responsibly, just like most adults do.

The drinking culture is so much different in other countries--and better. We should take a page out of their book and try to model our policies and attitudes towards alcohol on their system. It is working much better for them.

Taft

Taft
Feb 26, 2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Totally agree. Remember in my platform, I moved for the treatment of users, not punishment i jail. Also, remember he was busted on a law against paraphanallia (sp bad :))

That was my point. That is law. Petty, maybe, but still the law.

Who was busted?? I'm not talking about Tommy Chong. Separate issue. I'm talking about medicinal marijuana users and providers. To my knowledge Tommy Chong has never been able to "take advantage" of medicinal marijuana.

The people busted on medicinal marijuana by the federal government are busted for possesion or distribution laws. The providers of medicinal marijuana (even those sanctioned by the state or a city) are treated like dealers and subsequently receive very stiff jail terms. Bad stuff.

Taft

zuffen
Feb 26, 2003, 10:24 AM
"You have a right in the US to own firearms. How is a banks "no guns allowed inside" policy infringing on your right to own a firearm?


Lethal"

Right to bear arms....own is something else

I don't have a problem (if I carried a gun) leaving it in the car to goto into a bank, if the policy of the business is no guns.

But to make it law is another thing.

Obviously in that line of business, having an armed person enter your workplace can leave you stressed. But so what, eveyday I get on the highway I'm stressed, John Q public stresses me out, waiting in line at Wal-mart when they have 15 unmanned registers pisses me off which causes stress.

I can see the no shirt no shoes no service in a etablishement that has to meet health code, but if you have gun we don't want your business is pushing it.

There is no fix

The punishment in law breaking isn't working. I don't want to carry a gun but when the law doesn't protect me....

The discussion though is Federal mandates over personal rights.

Society has its addicts and sickos, and that won't change, what we can change is accountability. For the everyday normal Joe, we don't need to pass laws to make his life crap, we need to focus our laws on evil people.

If you want to kill someone, don't lock them up for 20 years , put them to death.

If you want to smoke dope, tax it, sell it and have the user sign a waiver that when he gets lung cancer, fired from his job, busted for drving 20 in a 50, he has no rights.

The occasional user (not an addict) will be able to handle his repsonsiblity not to screw up and affect somebody else in a negative way.

That goes for alcohol and cigarettes, if you want to kill yourself or negatively impact your life, that is your business.

But I don't want to pay for you problems, my money needs to go to children needing food and medicine, not some smoker of 30 years needing cancer treatment.

Look at the RI fire.

The club is negligent for the insulation and providing inaddequate safety measures. It was a rock club, pyros are used by rock bands, make the place safe. Or at least cover you ass in the contract with the band, no Pyros and police the stage.

The band is negligent, 20 year verterans should know better than uyse pyros in a small venue like that without having a roady with a fire extinguisher ready.

I've done pyros I know how they work.

But will happen is the feds will go, damn I guess the public for thier own safety, we are just going to have to ban pyros. That is how the system works.

Accountability......not laws prohibitting but laws making individuals accountable.

Taft
Feb 26, 2003, 10:49 AM
Completely offtopic, but there seems to be an inordinate amount of people on this thread who can't seem to get the hang of the MacRumors quoting mechanism.

Maybe a little too much puffing...:D

Taft

PalmHarborTchr
Feb 26, 2003, 11:06 AM
Ashcroft et al are sooooo disappointed they don't have Clinton's sex life
to investigate any more, they are going after water pipe distributors,
You see, much of the war on terrorism is over so these guys need something
to do. About 3 months ago, they raided a 50 something woman in Santa
Cruz who grew a few pot plants for the terminally ill per California Proposition
15. Ashcroft sent 15 goons in black uniforms and automatic weapons to
arrest this poor lady. See the war is over and no one won.
Is this what you guys voted for????????????????

macfan
Feb 26, 2003, 12:49 PM
PalmHarborTchr,

If you don't like the federal drug laws, change them. Petition your government. It is your right. I don't see where legal marijuana would do much harm, but that is the law as it exists today. Try not to whine about state laws being different or Proposition 15 because federal law trumps state law, according to federal courts, who have the last say and have for a long time. If there was a state proposition that reinstituted Jim Crow laws in Alabama, it would not matter, federal law would not allow it to take effect. We have a similar situation here (the issues are very different, of course, but the concept of federal supremacy applies).

The men and women of the DEA, ATF, FBI, and any other alphabet soup agency you want to mention are not goons or thugs. They are professional law enforcement who risk their own lives to enforce the laws that your representatives have passed. You ought to have a little more respect for them.

Les Kern
Feb 26, 2003, 01:02 PM
The men and women of the DEA, ATF, FBI, and any other alphabet soup agency you want to mention are not goons or thugs. They are professional law enforcement who risk their own lives to enforce the laws that your representatives have passed. You ought to have a little more respect for them.

I'd be the first to agree with this, but PalmHarborTchr 's point was, if I'm not mistaken, was that Ashcroft and his upper-level folowers (the "et al?), not those agencies in general, is the concern. And he should be.

markjones05
Feb 26, 2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Taft
Completely offtopic, but there seems to be an inordinate amount of people on this thread who can't seem to get the hang of the MacRumors quoting mechanism.

Maybe a little too much puffing...:D

Taft



wat u meen?:confused:

markjones05
Feb 26, 2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Taft
But look at how alcohol is was treated during prohibition. Bad stuff. Look at how alcohol is treated by teens today or kids at college. Binge drinking is at an all-time high. Legality and availability play a big role in this.

Our kids need to be taught the FACTS on drug and alcohol consumption. We need to teach them to consume responsibly, just like most adults do.

The drinking culture is so much different in other countries--and better. We should take a page out of their book and try to model our policies and attitudes towards alcohol on their system. It is working much better for them.

Taft


As kids we were taught the FACTS on drug and alcohol consumption. How are kids supposed to learn how to drink responsibly if no one will let them touch the stuff. There is no such thing as a drinking age in many European countries and they dont have nearly any of the problems that we do. Why is that? Why wouldnt a curious kid who finally got his or her hands on some alcohol drink as much as possible? There is a difference between hearing about the consequences of using drugs and alcohol and actually experiencing them for yourself. Im sure when yyou picked up your first drink it wasn't at 21. And I'm sure you didnt know how to drink the first time you went to a highschool kegger. Get real, some of these laws are outdated and need changing.

Zion Grail
Feb 26, 2003, 02:04 PM
*sigh*

OK, time for rant mode.

First off:

Marijuana is not harmless. It takes about a 1/3 of a cigarette to start seriously damaging your lungs. A typical joint does that much when 1/12 of it has been smoked. Plus, even small quantites of THC can be damaging - more than most realize. This is a potent drug, and using it damages your body. Period. No amount of self-delusion will change that. You can refuse to believe the gun pointed at you will hurt you, but if it goes off it'll still hurt you.

To make matters worse, you pay for it. Not just monetarily, not just by damaging your body, but there is also the risk of getting caught by authorities.

You're paying for something to hurt you. Not exactly the most intelligent concept.

To make matters worse, pot makes you feel good about being bored, or about anything in general. Much like alcohol, it's often used as an escape.

Again, this isn't a very bright idea. When you start feeling good about being bored or about a bad situation, you lose another opportunatey to better yourself, have fun, or get out of that bad situation. And no, you don't need pot or alcohol to have fun. If you think you do, you arne't trying hard enough. Trust me, having a clear mind makes stuff like this (http://www.burton.com/) that much better.

As for the legalities, I don't have that much problem with it being illegal. I think we should focus on the social problems first, while also increasing the penalties for DUI (with any substance).

As for the drugs/terrorism thing:

Not all drugs support terrorism. But, a lot do. If you think that the mob isn't involved and that they don't commit serious crimes, then you need to stop smoking so much pot and re-engage your mind for a bit. No drug money, no funding for these organizations. With no funding they can't cause corruption, commit as many crimes, nor hurt as many people. It's a lot more simple than you'd think.

Sorry, but I'm not going to pay someone to screw me over. Doing drugs is just a bad idea.

markjones05
Feb 26, 2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Zion Grail
*sigh*

OK, time for rant mode.

First off:

Marijuana is not harmless. It takes about a 1/3 of a cigarette to start seriously damaging your lungs. A typical joint does that much when 1/12 of it has been smoked. Plus, even small quantites of THC can be damaging - more than most realize. This is a potent drug, and using it damages your body. Period. No amount of self-delusion will change that. You can refuse to believe the gun pointed at you will hurt you, but if it goes off it'll still hurt you.

To make matters worse, you pay for it. Not just monetarily, not just by damaging your body, but there is also the risk of getting caught by authorities.

You're paying for something to hurt you. Not exactly the most intelligent concept.

To make matters worse, pot makes you feel good about being bored, or about anything in general. Much like alcohol, it's often used as an escape.

Again, this isn't a very bright idea. When you start feeling good about being bored or about a bad situation, you lose another opportunatey to better yourself, have fun, or get out of that bad situation. And no, you don't need pot or alcohol to have fun. If you think you do, you arne't trying hard enough. Trust me, having a clear mind makes stuff like this (http://www.burton.com/) that much better.

As for the legalities, I don't have that much problem with it being illegal. I think we should focus on the social problems first, while also increasing the penalties for DUI (with any substance).

As for the drugs/terrorism thing:

Not all drugs support terrorism. But, a lot do. If you think that the mob isn't involved and that they don't commit serious crimes, then you need to stop smoking so much pot and re-engage your mind for a bit. No drug money, no funding for these organizations. With no funding they can't cause corruption, commit as many crimes, nor hurt as many people. It's a lot more simple than you'd think.

Sorry, but I'm not going to pay someone to screw me over. Doing drugs is just a bad idea.

Oh my god, do you even live on the same planet as everyone else? We all agreed that Marijuana and alcohol are mind altering agents, and yes they do do a certain amount of damage to the users body. However you can continue dreaming of your perfect little world in which no crime occurs and everyone is happy. If you need a substance to have fun you have what i known as a substance abuse problem (which is not what we are talking about at all) We are talking about the responsible usage of marijuana and relating it to the usage of alcohol in this country. If you want to believ that by not buying a little weed hear and there will prevent all the crime out there you can go live in your idealist little mind. However ill be right here enjoying life in the real world, taking the edge off of stressful days at school and work.

sparkleytone
Feb 26, 2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Zion Grail
Marijuana is not harmless. It takes about a 1/3 of a cigarette to start seriously damaging your lungs. A typical joint does that much when 1/12 of it has been smoked. Plus, even small quantites of THC can be damaging - more than most realize. This is a potent drug, and using it damages your body. Period. No amount of self-delusion will change that. You can refuse to believe the gun pointed at you will hurt you, but if it goes off it'll still hurt you.

Not all drugs support terrorism. But, a lot do. If you think that the mob isn't involved and that they don't commit serious crimes, then you need to stop smoking so much pot and re-engage your mind for a bit. No drug money, no funding for these organizations. With no funding they can't cause corruption, commit as many crimes, nor hurt as many people. It's a lot more simple than you'd think.


i think everyone has heard and is aware of the effects of marijuana. especially those that have actually used it. the whole cigarette thing, is basically distorting the truth in order to cast a different light on things. cigarettes are more harmful because they are extremely addictive, and therefore people smoke MUCH more tobacco than people who smoke marijuana, in general. Physical addiction is much more painful and physiologically harmful than any THC you want to talk about.

The second part i quoted because you are demonstrating a startlingly obtuse view on things. That just won't happen. Look at prohibition. Doesn't work. You simply cannot ever have the ability to control it completely. What DOES work, is setting up a national means of distribution and taxation. Someone is making money off of it, and it may as well be the government rather than the criminals and social deviants. But, at the same time, the government is controlling things that are harmful to its people. Its not as simple as YOU think.

macfan
Feb 26, 2003, 02:36 PM
Les,


I'd be the first to agree with this, but PalmHarborTchr 's point was, if I'm not mistaken, was that Ashcroft and his upper-level folowers (the "et al?), not those agencies in general, is the concern. And he should be.

What part of "15 goons in black uniforms and automatic weapons" do you think shouldn't be offensive to the men and women of federal law enforcement agencies.

If you want to point the finger of blame, point it at the United States Congress who writes the laws and the presidents who sign them, and the voters who elect them, not the agencies and personnel who enforce them within the authority of the Consitution and laws of the United States.

Smoking marijuana is pretty stupid, imo, but there are many things that are legal, but less than brilliant. We don't outlaw all stupidity. Many Americans use Windows 98, for example.

Taft
Feb 26, 2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by markjones05
As kids we were taught the FACTS on drug and alcohol consumption. How are kids supposed to learn how to drink responsibly if no one will let them touch the stuff. There is no such thing as a drinking age in many European countries and they dont have nearly any of the problems that we do. Why is that? Why wouldnt a curious kid who finally got his or her hands on some alcohol drink as much as possible? There is a difference between hearing about the consequences of using drugs and alcohol and actually experiencing them for yourself. Im sure when yyou picked up your first drink it wasn't at 21. And I'm sure you didnt know how to drink the first time you went to a highschool kegger. Get real, some of these laws are outdated and need changing.

I don't know how, but somehow you misconstrued my statements and thought I was arguing against you. I almost completely agree with you.

To make my point clear: I think the drinking age should be lowered (or done away with) and parents, schools, and the community should take more responsibility in enforcing RESPOSIBLE drinking.

However, in school, most kids are not taught facts. They are taught propoganda and scare tactics to get kids to avoid drugs. Guess what, it doesn't work.

Taft

Taft
Feb 26, 2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Zion Grail

Marijuana is not harmless. It takes about a 1/3 of a cigarette to start seriously damaging your lungs. A typical joint does that much when 1/12 of it has been smoked. Plus, even small quantites of THC can be damaging - more than most realize. This is a potent drug, and using it damages your body. Period. No amount of self-delusion will change that. You can refuse to believe the gun pointed at you will hurt you, but if it goes off it'll still hurt you.


What do you mean "seriously"? As in permenant? Well thats not true. Studies give varying results, but generally agree that a joint has the same effect on your lungs as multiple cigarettes (2 to 10 depending on the study). But how many people sit around all day, every day smoking joints?? Few. If used recreationally only occasionally, it isn't nearly as dangerous as tobacco, and not even close as addcting. Also, there are methods to get THC into your blood without burning the pot (vaporization, for instance). This eliminates most of the damaging effects to your lungs.

And TCH isn't nearly as potent as you give it credit for. It isn't addictive (or not very, less than caffeine, tobacco, or alcohol), and has few long lasting effects and no permenant effects. Memory and overall brain performance can be effected slightly in the short term, but those effect dissappear after a relatively short time off pot. Same with other symptoms.


To make matters worse, you pay for it. Not just monetarily, not just by damaging your body, but there is also the risk of getting caught by authorities.

You're paying for something to hurt you. Not exactly the most intelligent concept.

To make matters worse, pot makes you feel good about being bored, or about anything in general. Much like alcohol, it's often used as an escape.

Again, this isn't a very bright idea. When you start feeling good about being bored or about a bad situation, you lose another opportunatey to better yourself, have fun, or get out of that bad situation. And no, you don't need pot or alcohol to have fun. If you think you do, you arne't trying hard enough. Trust me, having a clear mind makes stuff like this (http://www.burton.com/) that much better.


While this is all true, its true of most other drugs including alcohol. It isn't a defense, I'm simply stating that a very large segment of the population has no problem with altering their consciousness sometimes. Maybe that isn't a life choice you like to make, but some people, myself included, do like to alter their consciousness (with alcohol) and are still functional and even exceptional members of society. Thanks for looking down your damn pretentious nose at us, though. :rolleyes:


As for the legalities, I don't have that much problem with it being illegal. I think we should focus on the social problems first, while also increasing the penalties for DUI (with any substance).

As for the drugs/terrorism thing:

Not all drugs support terrorism. But, a lot do. If you think that the mob isn't involved and that they don't commit serious crimes, then you need to stop smoking so much pot and re-engage your mind for a bit. No drug money, no funding for these organizations. With no funding they can't cause corruption, commit as many crimes, nor hurt as many people. It's a lot more simple than you'd think.

This is crap.

First, the war on drugs IS a societal problem. It costs huge amounts of money, kills many people a year, and hasn't helped curb the use of drugs. Look at prohibition, for example. It didn't work and we repealed it. The same thing will eventually happen with drugs. It needs to.

Your terrorism bit is actually quite funny. So now every violent crime committed in this country is terrorism??? Please :rolleyes:

SOME drugs get grown by very bad people in very bad places. Other drugs get grown by good and otherwise law abiding citizens. And, anyway, all of this would go away if the government would be savvy enough to legalize drugs and monitor their growth and sales. It would solve many, many problems and stop the needless waste of money and life that is the war on drugs.

Just because you, or myself, or some old lady in Salt Lake City thinks that drugs are bad and that they should be illegal, doesn't stop people from taking them or selling them. The drug war doesn't stop that either. We are fighting the inevitable and paying a very high price for it. The sooner we realize it and move on, the better.

Taft

Taft
Feb 26, 2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Les,



What part of "15 goons in black uniforms and automatic weapons" do you think shouldn't be offensive to the men and women of federal law enforcement agencies.

If you want to point the finger of blame, point it at the United States Congress who writes the laws and the presidents who sign them, and the voters who elect them, not the agencies and personnel who enforce them within the authority of the Consitution and laws of the United States.

Smoking marijuana is pretty stupid, imo, but there are many things that are legal, but less than brilliant. We don't outlaw all stupidity. Many Americans use Windows 98, for example.

As I have pointed out, not all of the mandates that Ashcroft and his goons (yes I said goons--fudge your pretentious patriotism! I have respect for those who put their life on the line. But not for those who risk our officers lives by needlessly attacking civilians.), not all of those mandates come directly from congress. Many are simply the way substances are classified by various federal agencies (FDA, DEA, etc.). Granted our government has given them some power, but in the end the justice department and the drug czar decide what course to follow as far as arrest and prosecution policy.

And thats why the statement "Federal law trumps state law" doesn't necessarily apply in this case. And thats why I find this administration's policies so offensive. What happened to promoting state's rights to choose???

Can someone answer that for me???

Taft

Les Kern
Feb 26, 2003, 04:00 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by macfan
What part of "15 goons in black uniforms and automatic weapons" do you think shouldn't be offensive to the men and women of federal law enforcement agencies.

I'll repeat:
I'd be the first to agree with this, but PalmHarborTchr 's point was, if I'm not mistaken, was that Ashcroft and his upper-level folowers (the "et al?), not those agencies in general, is the concern. And he should be.

If you want to point the finger of blame, point it at the United States Congress who writes the laws and the presidents who sign them, and the voters who elect them, not the agencies and personnel who enforce them within the authority of the Consitution and laws of the United States.

You're right, but MY point was Ashcroft. HE was given the post by Bush. HE sets the priorities of what to persue, and what he goes after is picked from the part of his brain that intolerant and fundamentalist. Hear anything about Enron and WorldCom lately? Not much. Of course the media picks what they show, but that's another thread. Don't think for ONE second that I actually believe what you said I believe. Read it next time and don't jump on my butt.

Smoking marijuana is pretty stupid, imo, but there are many things that are legal, but less than brilliant. We don't outlaw all stupidity. Many Americans use Windows 98, for example.

I agree completely.

Zion Grail
Feb 26, 2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Taft
What do you mean "seriously"? As in permenant? Well thats not true. Studies give varying results, but generally agree that a joint has the same effect on your lungs as multiple cigarettes (2 to 10 depending on the study). But how many people sit around all day, every day smoking joints?? Few. If used recreationally only occasionally, it isn't nearly as dangerous as tobacco, and not even close as addcting. Also, there are methods to get THC into your blood without burning the pot (vaporization, for instance). This eliminates most of the damaging effects to your lungs.

Nicotine is an extremely addictive substance. It's also very dangerous, even if it lacks the overall sensory disruption of THC. I never said smoking cigarettes was smart. In fact, it's just as dumb.

The sheer rate that marijuana can damage the lungs is still to be considered. Although one doens't normally smoke as many joints as cigarettes, an average rate of 5 to 1 still poses a signficant health risk. Your lungs do not recover that quickly. As I said, the 1/3 of a cigarette needed to significantly damage your lungs means a much smaller part of a joint is needed to do the same damage.

Such ratios simply aren't enough to reduce the damage to zero, or even approach that level.

As for the other methods, you still have the problems of THC. As I said, even small amounts have negative overall effects.

And TCH isn't nearly as potent as you give it credit for. It isn't addictive (or not very, less than caffeine, tobacco, or alcohol), and has few long lasting effects and no permenant effects. Memory and overall brain performance can be effected [b]slightly in the short term, but those effect dissappear after a relatively short time off pot. Same with other symptoms.

No long term effects? I'm sorry, but I know way too many pot-heads to believe that absolute piece of tripe. Not to mention the mountains of studies that show a lot of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps Jeremy (one such pothead who has been clean 2 years running) will return to normal in another 10 or 15 years, but by that time it'll be incredibly hard to get himself out of the sorry position he's in.

Also, the short-term effects (http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html) are more than enough to cause one to seriously question the wisdom of using such drugs.

You pay out the nose for it. It messes you up. It's a bad idea.

While this is all true, its true of most other drugs including alcohol. It isn't a defense, I'm simply stating that a very large segment of the population has no problem with altering their consciousness sometimes. Maybe that isn't a life choice you like to make, but some people, myself included, do like to alter their consciousness (with alcohol) and are still functional and even exceptional members of society. Thanks for looking down your damn pretentious nose at us, though. :rolleyes:

As I stated above, paying someone to purposefully harm yourself is not a very bright idea. I never said that using other drugs was a good idea, nor have I said using them is necessarily a better idea than using marijuana. I never even implied it.

Alcohol is quite possibly the most tame of all commonly abused drugs. Hell, it's even possible to benefit from very light use of it (in certain demographics). However, getting plastered ruins all of that and is, again, a bad idea.


This is crap.

First, the war on drugs IS a societal problem. It costs huge amounts of money, kills many people a year, and hasn't helped curb the use of drugs. Look at prohibition, for example. It didn't work and we repealed it. The same thing will eventually happen with drugs. It needs to.

Your terrorism bit is actually quite funny. So now every violent crime committed in this country is terrorism??? Please :rolleyes:

SOME drugs get grown by very bad people in very bad places. Other drugs get grown by good and otherwise law abiding citizens. And, anyway, all of this would go away if the government would be savvy enough to legalize drugs and monitor their growth and sales. It would solve many, many problems and stop the needless waste of money and life that is the war on drugs.

When you create and sell drugs, it's an understood risk that you may get caught. In that situation, if you fight the police, it's an understood risk that you may get your stupid ass shot. You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.

However, on the flip side, it's usually innocents who get hurt. My friend is no-longer-living proof of that.

Also, legalizing it produces a whole new set of problems. It's use would greatly increase, and the effects of said drugs would as well. DUI cases would increase (thereby increasing the number of deaths from related accidents), as would deaths from the drugs themselves. Though marijuana is relatively tame, it can still mess you up.

Just because you, or myself, or some old lady in Salt Lake City thinks that drugs are bad and that they should be illegal, doesn't stop people from taking them or selling them. The drug war doesn't stop that either. We are fighting the inevitable and paying a very high price for it. The sooner we realize it and move on, the better.

I'm sorry, but there are also costs to legalization, and I don't mean just red tape.

Personally, if I were an employer, I'd fire anyone who was using such drugs. Why? I'm not getting my money's worth. Those drugs can stay in your system longer than you think (not to mention the after-effects), and the more permanent damage will, of course, affect the mind. Someone whose mind has been damages by these chemicals will usually be far less effective than those who are clean. The whole mess could leave an effect on the economy much greater than you anticipate.

And that's it, I'm done with the legaization arguement. I'm not going to pursue it any further, due to personal policy. (Nothing good ever comes from it.)

Summing up:

A) It messes you up.
B) You pay for it.
Therefore:
C) It's a bad idea.

macfan
Feb 26, 2003, 05:30 PM
Les,

It's not what you said that I'm complaining about. It's what PalmHarborTchr said in calling Federal law enforcement officials "goons." I think the most notable point he had was tha federal law enforcement officials, some of whom are friends of mine, are properly characterized as "goons" because he doesn't happen to like the particular law that his representatives support. I think that's pathetic and PalmHarborTchr deserves to be called on it.

Again, you can argue that Ashcroft shouldn't enforce these laws, but you would do better to call your representative and have them changed than to complain when they are enforced.

markjones05
Feb 26, 2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Taft
I don't know how, but somehow you misconstrued my statements and thought I was arguing against you. I almost completely agree with you.

To make my point clear: I think the drinking age should be lowered (or done away with) and parents, schools, and the community should take more responsibility in enforcing RESPOSIBLE drinking.

However, in school, most kids are not taught facts. They are taught propoganda and scare tactics to get kids to avoid drugs. Guess what, it doesn't work.

Taft


Sorry Taft I read your post through quickly and responded quickly. I was eagre to reply to some of the other posts and upon second read realized what you were saying. My fault.

vniow
Feb 26, 2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Zion Grail

As I stated above, paying someone to purposefully harm yourself is not a very bright idea.

You're not a masochist are you?

markjones05
Feb 26, 2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Zion Grail
Also, legalizing it produces a whole new set of problems. It's use would greatly increase, and the effects of said drugs would as well. DUI cases would increase (thereby increasing the number of deaths from related accidents), as would deaths from the drugs themselves. Though marijuana is relatively tame, it can still mess you up.

I'm sorry, but there are also costs to legalization, and I don't mean just red tape.


Wow you must be really smart to know what definately will happen if its legalized.

Taft
Feb 26, 2003, 05:59 PM
I'm sorry, but you are just wrong in many of your facts. Also, you seem to have the inability to distinguish casual use of drugs from hard core and dangerous use. Statements such as the one about not hiring a person who uses (in any capacity?) marijuana show just how ignorant you are to the actual effects of the drug.

I'll skip the crap about the lungs. We both admit there is a danger. Though you seem bent on bashing casual drug users in general and overestimating the damage. Did you know that if you stop smoking cigs right now, your lungs can repair themselves in a relatively short amount of time(depending on how long you've been smoking)? Its a fact.

Originally posted by Zion Grail

No long term effects? I'm sorry, but I know way too many pot-heads to believe that absolute piece of tripe. Not to mention the mountains of studies that show a lot of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps Jeremy (one such pothead who has been clean 2 years running) will return to normal in another 10 or 15 years, but by that time it'll be incredibly hard to get himself out of the sorry position he's in.

Also, the short-term effects (http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html) are more than enough to cause one to seriously question the wisdom of using such drugs.


The information you linked to is put out by a ANTI-DRUG agency. Hmmm....have we ever known an anti-drug agency to exaggerate the facts???

How 'bout this: http://www.drugwarfacts.com/marijuan.htm

It includes such gems as:


A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.


There is little to no evidence that marijuana (THC) permenantly effects your brain from normal use (we're not talking about injecting mice with high doses of THC here, just regular usage via inhalation). And there is a mountain of evidence pointing to the little effects of addiction it has (far less than your "safe" alcohol).

And as far as your highly scientific and subjective evidence from all the pot-heads you know, gimmie a break! I mean, I know many pot-heads from college that are all very productive members of society now (hell, I was one of them). If you have mental problems (a mental illness or other addictions), smoking pot may be a contributing factor in causing long term effects. If I was bi-polar and slammed shots, took vicadin, snuffed glue and smoked weed every night, I might have some issues. But smoking a jay every nce and while is not going to hurt the vast majority of people (over 95%).


You pay out the nose for it. It messes you up. It's a bad idea.

As I stated above, paying someone to purposefully harm yourself is not a very bright idea. I never said that using other drugs was a good idea, nor have I said using them is necessarily a better idea than using marijuana. I never even implied it.


I'm living proof that that is absolutely not true. I've got a great job, I've got great friends, my life, in a word, is simply great.

I'm not messed up. I didn't "pay out the nose for it." I did take a risk, a risk I deemed to be acceptable. And if I had to go back and do it again, I would.


Also, legalizing it produces a whole new set of problems. It's use would greatly increase, and the effects of said drugs would as well. DUI cases would increase (thereby increasing the number of deaths from related accidents), as would deaths from the drugs themselves. Though marijuana is relatively tame, it can still mess you up.


None of this is necessarily true, yet you push it as fact. Go to drugwarfacts.com and look at the success of Amsterdam's legalization program. You really don't know your facts.


Personally, if I were an employer, I'd fire anyone who was using such drugs. Why? I'm not getting my money's worth. Those drugs can stay in your system longer than you think (not to mention the after-effects), and the more permanent damage will, of course, affect the mind. Someone whose mind has been damages by these chemicals will usually be far less effective than those who are clean. The whole mess could leave an effect on the economy much greater than you anticipate.


I'm glad you aren't my employer. I'm a HUGE asset to my firm. I'm a hard worker and I personally believe I'm just as intelligent, fast thinking, and creative as the day I stepped into college.

You blatently generallize and use half truths to portray all drug users, ex- and current alike, as dumb-asses. It disturbs me greatly. If this is the general perception of the public, its quite sad.


And that's it, I'm done with the legaization arguement. I'm not going to pursue it any further, due to personal policy. (Nothing good ever comes from it.)

Sorry to hear that. I'm always willing to debate. I just hope you read the links I gave you. They are FACT and they prove you solidly wrong.


Summing up:

A) It messes you up.
B) You pay for it.
Therefore:
C) It's a bad idea.

Summing up:

A) Pot won't mess the majority of the population up, as long as they are responsible users. This is no different than alcohol.
B) If you are responsible, what you pay for using pot is only as great as the price of a bag and a little "extra" for the risk factor (you be the judge of wether its worth it for you). This cost is little higher than alcohol.
C) Its not necessarily a bad idea.

Taft

Les Kern
Feb 26, 2003, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Again, you can argue that Ashcroft shouldn't enforce these laws, but you would do better to call your representative and have them changed than to complain when they are enforced.

I hope they read forums like this, because I have tried. I don't rant, and have sent some very nicely worded questions like "What is your position on.." and "Why is it that you support..." and never get a reply. Never.

Les Kern
Feb 26, 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Les,

It's not what you said that I'm complaining about. It's what....

Oops. We're cool. Sorry. I still hate Ashcroft though! :)

zuffen
Feb 26, 2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Taft

Summing up:

A) Pot won't mess the majority of the population up, as long as they are responsible users. This is no different than alcohol.
B) If you are responsible, what you pay for using pot is only as great as the price of a bag and a little "extra" for the risk factor (you be the judge of wether its worth it for you). This cost is little higher than alcohol.
C) Its not necessarily a bad idea.

Taft

Generally any substance if used in moderation and by an individual not predisposed to the addictive qualities of that substance can safely use the substance.

But unfortunately the odds are greater that there is a genetic predisposition to chemicals that alter the human state in a way that brings a decline in the quality of being (some people would say being f**^ed up is the ideal state of being).

As for John Hopkins study, well I would have to read it thorugh and through. I know from my studies of life, that ocassional marijuana use in a productive individual does have a few short term side effects. That side effect has different outcomes depending on the individual, but the quality of mind has been affected none the less. As useage increases with time and quantity those effects become longer in term and have a greater impact.

I've had friends screw up thier life for several years because of pot . And when they finally decided to quit, they became the person they before the period of green fog as I like to call. I don't think there are set standards of how marijuana affects the actual life of human beings. Each person is different.

One thing though on the problem users, is that they have preexisiting issues that marijuana doesn't improve on, or other illegal chemicals for the most part.

The brain is wired in so many facinating ways.

I personally can't stand pot , it is revolting in smell and taste. I've never smoked it, but I have been in rooms for long periods filled with smoke that could very well indicate in a blood test that I had smoked pot.

I had nauseous feeling along with a headache. I guess I'm wired against it.

I've been told by a professional that I was an alchoholic (father and brother have had issues and rehab) even though I don't drink to get drunk. I like the flavor of alchohol and the buzz is soso, but getting drunk doesn't appeal to me.

I'm sure there are some pot users that have the same feelings, they could take it or leave it. But there are so many that crave pot, and if it were readily available would that have a possible lead into a chronic useage problem.

Just thinking outloud

kylos
Feb 26, 2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by markjones05
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kyle?
[B]I personally know a guy who wandered into a street while high and got creamed by a car. Now he walks poorly and has severe brain damage. Mind altering substances can leave permanent damage. Maybe you won't die of lung cancer or something but you will end up hurting yourself.

Isn't alcohol a mind altering material? One that has caused more car accidents than marijuana ever has? Just because you knew a guy who happened to be high instead of drunk doesnt make this a valid point.

Try reading before you post. Obviously alcohol is mind altering. I said as much in listing drunk driving as dumb behavior. My point is, irresponsible behavior such as various dui(influences) should all be illegal. I really don't care if you want to smoke weed. Just don't endanger others.

Actually, my point was in response to your dumb claim that marijuana never did anything to anyone. So it is valid. You don't pay attention. You admit as much when you say that alcohol and pot cause you to lose control over your action.

Why does alcohol cause more accidents than marijuana? Because of availability and hence greater use and possibility for abuse.

My main point was that since pot is illegal at this point, don't be upset that the laws are enforced. I'm not saying pot should be illegal.



The whole medicinal pot thing is a crock. I mean, if it's medicinal, it should be heavily regulated by the FDA, not distributed by specialized weed growers. It's just nonsense, just a way for losers to get their habit accepted by those who don't have this problem. I'm sure these poor suffering souls could have a doctor prescript some other drug (I've heard the whole business about people not being able to tolerate certain drugs; I'm sure a doctor can find something for them, there are so many drugs available).

Les Kern
Feb 26, 2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by Kyle?
Try reading before you post. Obviously alcohol is mind altering. I said as much in listing drunk driving as dumb behavior. My point is, irresponsible behavior such as various dui(influences) should all be illegal. I really don't care if you want to smoke weed. Just don't endanger others.

Actually, my point was in response to your dumb claim that marijuana never did anything to anyone. So it is valid. You don't pay attention. You admit as much when you say that alcohol and pot cause you to lose control over your action.

Why does alcohol cause more accidents than marijuana? Because of availability and hence greater use and possibility for abuse.

My main point was that since pot is illegal at this point, don't be upset that the laws are enforced. I'm not saying pot should be illegal.



The whole medicinal pot thing is a crock. I mean, if it's medicinal, it should be heavily regulated by the FDA, not distributed by specialized weed growers. It's just nonsense, just a way for losers to get their habit accepted by those who don't have this problem. I'm sure these poor suffering souls could have a doctor prescript some other drug (I've heard the whole business about people not being able to tolerate certain drugs; I'm sure a doctor can find something for them, there are so many drugs available).

You say you don't care if folks smoke, then say medicinal use is a crock... so DO you care? Medicinal use is proven, and I pray nobody in your family ever needs it. I have a cousin who needs it. Never smoked a day in his life. Grass for him makes what life he has left bearable. You don't know what you're talking about.
You also said "Why does alcohol cause more accidents than marijuana? Because of availability and hence greater use and possibility for abuse." Well, grass is certainly mind-altering, but alcohol effects motor skills. You were right on illegality of DUI. My brother-in-law was killed by one. People must be responsible for their actions. And I personal am never really "mad" that they are enforced, but enforce them fairly (equally), and at least take a look at out priorities in this country.

markjones05
Feb 28, 2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Kyle?
Try reading before you post. Obviously alcohol is mind altering. I said as much in listing drunk driving as dumb behavior. My point is, irresponsible behavior such as various dui(influences) should all be illegal. I really don't care if you want to smoke weed. Just don't endanger others.

Actually, my point was in response to your dumb claim that marijuana never did anything to anyone. So it is valid. You don't pay attention. You admit as much when you say that alcohol and pot cause you to lose control over your action.

Why does alcohol cause more accidents than marijuana? Because of availability and hence greater use and possibility for abuse.

My main point was that since pot is illegal at this point, don't be upset that the laws are enforced. I'm not saying pot should be illegal.



The whole medicinal pot thing is a crock. I mean, if it's medicinal, it should be heavily regulated by the FDA, not distributed by specialized weed growers. It's just nonsense, just a way for losers to get their habit accepted by those who don't have this problem. I'm sure these poor suffering souls could have a doctor prescript some other drug (I've heard the whole business about people not being able to tolerate certain drugs; I'm sure a doctor can find something for them, there are so many drugs available).



Ummmmmm, no. You're 100% wrong. In fact it is much eaier for minors to buy marijuana than it is to buy alcohol. I can walk down the street and get pretty much anything I want with no hassle at all. Availibility is not an issue what so ever. Maybe you should try reading this thread in its entirety before you post next time. Pot is mind altering as we all agreed along long time ago. So in that sense, yes it harms the user. But like I said before, I promote the responsible use of marijuana. I'm done talkin about this, I've said the same thing over and over again. If you have any other problems with it go back and read one of my previous posts because there is nothing more I need to say on the issue.

Next thread please

macfan
Feb 28, 2003, 03:28 PM
In our current legal environment, there is no responsible use of marijuana, except for possibly medical use under some limited circumstances.

kylos
Mar 3, 2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by markjones05
Ummmmmm, no. You're 100% wrong. In fact it is much eaier for minors to buy marijuana than it is to buy alcohol. I can walk down the street and get pretty much anything I want with no hassle at all. Availibility is not an issue what so ever. Maybe you should try reading this thread in its entirety before you post next time. Pot is mind altering as we all agreed along long time ago. So in that sense, yes it harms the user. But like I said before, I promote the responsible use of marijuana. I'm done talkin about this, I've said the same thing over and over again. If you have any other problems with it go back and read one of my previous posts because there is nothing more I need to say on the issue.

Next thread please

Let's see, I never mentioned minors, now did I? Adults get drunk just as much (if not more than minors). So that would make you 100% wrong.
Maybe you should read my previous posts?

As for minors, how could marijuana be easier to get than alcohol. Pretty much the only way to get pot is from a friend or dealer. With alcohol, you could get it from an adult friend as well (very likely), or you might use a sibling's id if they look similar enough (I know someone who has done this), or you might get it from a clerk who 'forgets to card' you, or you sneak some of your dad's, or you go to a party where there is sure to alcohol and nobody cares that your underage.

Really, this has nothing to do with the issue. You're just trying to justify your poor response, but you've only come up with a poorer one.

I have read this thread in its entirety. It had nothing to do with your reply or my posts. I don't post during the day because I work during the day; that's why I post so little here.

Sure, I'd love to move onto the next thread. Just admit when you're wrong.

markjones05
Mar 3, 2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Kyle?
Let's see, I never mentioned minors, now did I? Adults get drunk just as much (if not more than minors). So that would make you 100% wrong.
Maybe you should read my previous posts?

As for minors, how could marijuana be easier to get than alcohol. Pretty much the only way to get pot is from a friend or dealer. With alcohol, you could get it from an adult friend as well (very likely), or you might use a sibling's id if they look similar enough (I know someone who has done this), or you might get it from a clerk who 'forgets to card' you, or you sneak some of your dad's, or you go to a party where there is sure to alcohol and nobody cares that your underage.

Really, this has nothing to do with the issue. You're just trying to justify your poor response, but you've only come up with a poorer one.

I have read this thread in its entirety. It had nothing to do with your reply or my posts. I don't post during the day because I work during the day; that's why I post so little here.

Sure, I'd love to move onto the next thread. Just admit when you're wrong.

ok i absolutly refuse to admit im wrong because im not and im certainly entitled to my opinion as are you. you should calm down and not take these threads too seriously... i dont know what you think you have to prove. anyway goodjob getting worked up over this. smoke a blunt and chill out. peace